| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
another naked emperor
Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings,
touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...ewssectionID=1 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...ewssectionID=1 Visit rec.music.classical.recordings to see the full story. Most of the threads are about the Hatto controversy, with major articles in the London and European papers, the NYT, and so fourth. A full blown scandal apparently perpetuated by Hatto's husband (whether with or without her knowledge..not known) and helped along by a "cult" developed via the internet. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 17, 8:58 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...D=2759&newssec... Visit rec.music.classical.recordings to see the full story. Most of the threads are about the Hatto controversy, with major articles in the London and European papers, the NYT, and so fourth. Indeed. Those threads are the most complete discussion of the story that I've seen. A full blown scandal apparently perpetuated by Hatto's husband (whether with or without her knowledge..not known) and helped along by a "cult" developed via the internet. I also find the part of the story concerning Gracenotes database interesting. How much can we trust that service? |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 17, 7:02?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...D=2759&newssec... Another naked emporer? Sounds like a plain and simple plagarist.I never knew of this "cult of classical connoisseurs' but I do think "clasical connoisseurs." at least a certain subset of them, are the most easily fooled group of music enthusiasts out there. The plagarism is inexcusable as it always is. Other than that one poor sap who writes for gramophone I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Scott |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
wrote in message
... On Feb 17, 7:02?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...D=2759&newssec... Another naked emporer? Sounds like a plain and simple plagarist.I never knew of this "cult of classical connoisseurs' but I do think "clasical connoisseurs." at least a certain subset of them, are the most easily fooled group of music enthusiasts out there. Every music performer delivers the notes in a unique manner similar to a fingerprint, handwriting, etc.. However for the sound shaped by different 6550s??? The plagarism is inexcusable as it always is. Other than that one poor sap who writes for gramophone I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Scott |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: On Feb 17, 7:02?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...D=2759&newssec... Another naked emporer? Sounds like a plain and simple plagarist.I never knew of this "cult of classical connoisseurs' but I do think "clasical connoisseurs." at least a certain subset of them, are the most easily fooled group of music enthusiasts out there. I'd say *second* most. The first being audiophiles. The plagarism is inexcusable as it always is. Other than that one poor sap who writes for gramophone I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Yeah, sounds like the same old tired SS mantra. The two are hardly comparable. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 17, 5:39�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Feb 17, 7:02?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Late concert pianist's Joyce Hatto's hard-to-find recordings, touted for the last few years by a cult of connoisseurs as being among great instrumentalist 'finds' of the last decade, revealed to be digital copies of other pianists' recordings ...some of which were reviled by those same 'connoisseurs'. http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMain...D=2759&newssec... Another naked emporer? Sounds like a plain and simple plagarist.I never knew of this "cult of classical connoisseurs' but I do think "clasical connoisseurs." at least a certain subset of them, are the most easily fooled group of music enthusiasts out there. I'd say *second* most. The first being audiophiles. Have you hung out with pretenteous classical music buffs with money but no taste? I have. The plagarism is inexcusable as it always is. Other than that one poor sap who writes for gramophone I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted *'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Scott |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
|
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
wrote in message
... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. They just weren't by Hatto. Now if you said the same performance was great when credited to Hatto and bad when credited to its real performer, you have a problem... |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
c. leeds wrote:
wrote: ...Another naked emporer? Sounds like a plain and simple plagarist.I never knew of this "cult of classical connoisseurs' but I do think "clasical connoisseurs." at least a certain subset of them, are the most easily fooled group of music enthusiasts out there. Steven Sullivan answers: I'd say *second* most. The first being audiophiles. What a silly claim, and absent any evidence. Is it that you've never seen ANY evidence that 'aduiophiles' (and I should really have used quotes, as I'm referring the type fostered and nurtured by the audiophile press) are easily fooled music enthusiasts? Or is it just a question of how much of that evidence would you need, to venture an opinion that they are among the MOST easily fooled? Mr. Sullivan simply reveals himself to be no more than another naked emperor. He's surely the king of the "excluded middle" logical fallacy. Yes, I admit to being pretty good at spotting them. Audiophile forums have given me lots of training material. Just in last week I've seen the old 'either you're a subjectivist, or you believe everything sounds the same' fallacy offered a couple of times on audio forums. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
MC wrote:
wrote in message ... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. They just weren't by Hatto. I think both of you are misunderstanding me. Perhaps I should have applied emphasis as follows "...that *Hatto* was the real deal." I'm not saying the performances were never real. It's just that concerns *were* raised some time back about their *provenance*, which were met either with silence or vigorously denial by Hatto's cheerleaders. And there's also the amusing circumstance where some of these 'connoisseurs' (see rec.music.classical) slated a performance as originally released, but praised it when they thought it was by Hatto. That's a naked emperor fiasco in excelsis. Now if you said the same performance was great when credited to Hatto and bad when credited to its real performer, you have a problem... Bingo. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... MC wrote: wrote in message ... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. They just weren't by Hatto. I think both of you are misunderstanding me. Perhaps I should have applied emphasis as follows "...that *Hatto* was the real deal." I'm not saying the performances were never real. It's just that concerns *were* raised some time back about their *provenance*, which were met either with silence or vigorously denial by Hatto's cheerleaders. And there's also the amusing circumstance where some of these 'connoisseurs' (see rec.music.classical) slated a performance as originally released, but praised it when they thought it was by Hatto. That's a naked emperor fiasco in excelsis. Now if you said the same performance was great when credited to Hatto and bad when credited to its real performer, you have a problem... Bingo. My understanding from sampling the threads and the new articles is that one or two people were in that position (criticizing the original but lauding the "Hatto"). Most of the fold were simply fooled by a lying scammer. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 18, 2:21�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MC wrote: wrote in message ... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. *Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. *They just weren't by Hatto. I think both of you are misunderstanding me. Perhaps I should have applied emphasis as follows "...that *Hatto* was the real deal." That wouldn't have helped. As any boxing fan knows Evander Hollyfield is the real deal. All boxing related jokes aside still not sure where you are going with this. If you listen to someone's CDs and like the performance it doesn't make *you* the fool if it turns out the work was plagarized. It makes the "artist" a liar and a thief. I'm not saying the performances were never real. *It's just that concerns *were* raised some time back about their *provenance*, which were met either with silence or vigorously denial by Hatto's cheerleaders. Raising "concerns?" What precisely does that mean? Uncovering plagarism is for the most part a fairly cut and dry thing. And there's also the amusing circumstance where some of these 'connoisseurs' (see rec.music.classical) slated a performance as originally released, but praised it when they thought it was by Hatto. That's a naked emperor fiasco in excelsis. OK I'll buy that. That would make someone look pretty foolish. Remeber what I said about some classical "connoisseurs? Now if you said the same performance was great when credited to Hatto and bad when credited to its real performer, you have a problem... Bingo. Tip of the iceberg. Scott |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"MC" wrote in message
wrote in message ... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. They just weren't by Hatto. This seems to me to be very similar to an audio reviewer who says that sound of some new amplifier is better than any of its predecessors, when in fact that amplifier sounds exactly like one or more amplifiers that are already on the market. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 19, 3:43�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted *'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. That is quite a claim. Please name names. Who are these reviewers and where is the evidence that for years and years they have asserted thye have exceptional hearing and that we all should take their judgements at face value. I don't recall hearing *any* reviewer make those assertions. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed *that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed. How about giving us the details on this "secret controlled listening test." Scott |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed. How about telling us who those reviewers were, Arny, and where and when and in what context they claimed to have such exceptional hearing that readers were to suspend their judgement and simply accept the reveiwer's assertions. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "MC" wrote in message wrote in message ... Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. No, this was the first I had heard of Hatto. But praising the work of real artists even though that work was misrepresented by a plagarist as their own doesn't make the listener a fool. It makes the "author" a liar. Precisely. Those were real performances of real music and were apparently quite good. They just weren't by Hatto. This seems to me to be very similar to an audio reviewer who says that sound of some new amplifier is better than any of its predecessors, when in fact that amplifier sounds exactly like one or more amplifiers that are already on the market. Usually audio reviewers don't make bald claims like that. They say things like "their are others that may exhibit more transparency, albeit these are usually priced 2-3 times the unit under test". That claim may or may not be true. But more often or not when comparing to specific equipment I read an audio reviewer saying something like "it seems to me the unit under test sounds very much like xxxx (its bigger brother, a competing brand, etc.) but since i haven't had that unit inhouse for some time, I can't be sure". Methinks I smell the smell of straw burning here. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On 17 Feb 2007 16:58:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
A full blown scandal apparently perpetuated by Hatto's husband (whether with or without her knowledge..not known) and helped along by a "cult" developed via the internet. Herr Hatto has apparently been convicted of fraud earlier on in life. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
|
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 21, 3:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. But first, an answer to my question is due. You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. What reviewers? Quotes? It's a very strong statement that you made. As one who reads recording reviews, I'd like to know which ones you saw do what you assert in the Hatto matter, or any other for that matter. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Jenn" wrote in message
... On Feb 21, 3:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. But first, an answer to my question is due. You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. What reviewers? Quotes? It's a very strong statement that you made. As one who reads recording reviews, I'd like to know which ones you saw do what you assert in the Hatto matter, or any other for that matter. I want to support Jenn's request here, as I (and one other as well, making three of us) asked the same question. You made a blanket, condemning statement without an iota of support showing. So it's time to show what lay behind the statement. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
Jenn wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. But first, an answer to my question is due. You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. What reviewers? Quotes? please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Feb 21, 3:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. But first, an answer to my question is due. You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." True. I asked you for evidence of this. It's right above. Those are rhetorical questions. What reviewers? The ones that want us to take their reviews at face value or even more seriously than that. Quotes? I'm not expecting a lot of reviewers to be so crass as to beat their chests in public that way. If you do, then it would be up to you to find the quotes. It's a very strong statement that you made. Not really. Are we wrong to expect reviewers to have more competence than the man on the street? As one who reads recording reviews, I'd like to know which ones you saw do what you assert in the Hatto matter, or any other for that matter. It appears that your expectations for reviewers are quite low Jenn, and that you expect them to be easy prey for musical frauds. Then why bother to read them? |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: On Feb 21, 3:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message wrote: I'm not sure who comes out looking so "unclothed." Anyone who asserted 'just by listening' that Hatto was the real deal. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. snip Really? I've never seen those reviewers or any other classical recording reviewers claim such a thing. Can you support this statement with some evidence? Let someone then educate me about who a record reviewer is. Is a record reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing record reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with musical recordings? Sounds to me like this is the image of record reviewers that seems to be put forward here. After all, once we understand the purported unexceptional nature of record reviewers, there is no logical reason to hold any record reviewer accountable for their naive participation in promoting this fraud. (I'm not going to suggest for a second that the record reviewers involved intentionally promoted the fraud.) And, getting back on the audio track: Is an audio equipment reviewer just a stray semi-literate guy with average intelligence plucked off the street who gets assigned to writing equipment reviews, but has no special passion, education, talent or practical experience with audio equipment? All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. But first, an answer to my question is due. You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. What reviewers? Quotes? please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical First, the threads point (legitimately) to a couple of reviewers with egg on their faces simply because the came to a different conclusion wrt the same performance. Fine. The threads also make the point that most reviewers simply called many of the CD's "great performances" and were not "taken in" because they were in fact great performances...just not hers. But even the above is beside the point. Where is the evidence that those or any other reviewers said they "had exceptional hearing", had said so "for years", and had "asserted ... that we should take their judgements...at face value"? Where? |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 22, 7:53�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. *But first, an answer to my question is due. *You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. *What reviewers? *Quotes? please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical You have got to be kidding. You make strong allegations about reviewers without naming names and when asked to support your assertions you ask us to go on some Easter egg hunt to prove you right? Forget it. I don't think any reviewers said any of the things you claim about their hearing or level of reliability so I am not going to go looking for it. Feel free to prove me wrong, All you have to do is name the reviewers and quote them making the claims you say they made. Scott |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. Do you or Arny have any evidence of this? |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
Jenn wrote:
On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. Do you or Arny have any evidence of this? You guys (and gal) can play your semantic games until the cows come home. Meanwhile, I'm confident that long-time readers of classical record reviews understand quite well the attitudes and pretenses I'm referring to. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
|
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 23, 1:14 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote: On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. Do you or Arny have any evidence of this? You guys (and gal) can play your semantic games until the cows come home. "Semantic games"? I would call it "asking for intellectual honesty". Are we to discuss/debate issues based on facts or based on, uh, something else? Meanwhile, I'm confident that long-time readers of classical record reviews understand quite well the attitudes and pretenses I'm referring to. Respectfully, since there is no evidence of the claim it seems like you are dealing in stereotypes. At least it does to this long-time reader of classical record reviews. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 23, 1:15�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Feb 22, 7:53???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. ?But first, an answer to my question is due. ?You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. ?What reviewers? ?Quotes? please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical *You have got to be kidding. You make strong allegations about reviewers without naming names and when asked to support your assertions you ask us to go on some Easter egg hunt to prove you right? Forget it. I don't think any reviewers said any of the things you claim about their hearing or level of reliability so I am not going to go looking for it. Feel free to prove me wrong, All you have to do is name the reviewers and quote them making the claims you say they made. And what 'claims I say they made', pray tell, are you referring to? Arny's claims are what is obviously being contested. But you chose to give it a blanket endorsement with this post IMO. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...da705e734ecf6? Scott |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 23, 1:14�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote: On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. *I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. *Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. *Do you or Arny have any evidence of this? You guys (and gal) can play your semantic games until the cows come home. what semantic games? What do you not understand about the claim "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed." and our demand for evidence supporting these very specific claims? Meanwhile, I'm confident that long-time readers of classical record reviews understand quite well the attitudes and pretenses I'm referring to. I'm not terribly impressed by your confidence. Citing the support of unnamed long time readers of classical record reviews doesn't really mean much. The long time readers of clasical reviews that have actually responded to your posts apparently don't understand what it is you are refering to. Scott |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
"Jenn" wrote in message
On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. If no classical reviewer has hearing and knowlege of music that is better than the average man on the street, why bother to read their scribblings? |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
wrote in message
You make strong allegations I don't think any reviewers said any of the things you claim about their hearing or level of reliability. So Scott, you take time to read all of these high end reviews, without any hope of taking them at face value? Is your opinion of high end audio equipment reviews that low? |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 25, 7:51?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message You make strong allegations I don't think any reviewers said any of the things you claim about their hearing or level of reliability. So Scott, you take time to read all of these high end reviews, without any hope of taking them at face value? OK, I see you have once again offered nothing to support your assertions. So I will stand by my assertion that your allegations are plainly false. Perhaps others should take that into consideration when reading any of your future assertions. But to address your questions anyway. 1. I don't take the time to read "all of these" high end reviews. I sometimes read some reviews when I am considering purchasing a new component 2. I take those reviews at face value as representative of the reviewer's opinion. I don't assume that my opinion will be exactly the same. I have never read anything by a reviewer that suggested I should. Is your opinion of high end audio equipment reviews that low? Is yours so skewed that you really thought audio reviewers "have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value."??? Your words Arny. You haven't been able to back them up but it has been your premise upon which you base all these questions. Arny, one does not have to have a low opinion of subjective audio reviewers to know that a review is nothing more than one person's opinion that should not be taken as a universal fact. If one tries to use reviews as anything more than a starting point for the decision making proccess they have not only made a mistake but in the case of the ever popular target, Stereophile, the consumer would actually be going against the directions given to them by the editor and chief. Scott |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
On Feb 25, 7:48�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message On Feb 22, 7:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical I read RMC as well as RMCR. *I've yet to read about any classical reviewers who claimm to hear better than others. *Nor have I heard of any in all of my years in the music business. If no classical reviewer has hearing and knowlege of music that is better than the average man on the street, why bother to read their scribblings? So shall we take it that you have no evidence to support your original claim that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed." You have been asked several times to offer proof of this assertion and so far we get nothing but this. So it would appear you have absolutely nothing. Now I have to ask why would you assume that a music critic needs to have exceptional *hearing* to have anything worth reading about "music?" That makes no sense at all. A music critic certainly should have a better knowledge of *music* than the average man on the street and the ones I pay attention to do. Much better. I have to ask again for some support of your assertion that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value. When someone secretly presented them with recordings that sounded like earlier recordings they implicitly claimed that they heard exceptional differences. It was basically a controlled listening test, and in it they were exposed as being far less expert than they claimed." It is very specific and vigorous attack on a number of music reviewers' credibility. Sorry to say it but a lack of support for this assertion calls your credibility into question at this point. Scott |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
another naked emperor
wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:15???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: On Feb 22, 7:53???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: All of this could well make an interesting discussion, and I'll be happy to join in. ?But first, an answer to my question is due. ?You said that "The reviewers who fell for the Hatto fraud have blithely asserted for years that they have exceptional hearing and that we should take their judgements of recordings at face value." I asked you for evidence of this. ?What reviewers? ?Quotes? please see the dozens of relevant threads on rec.music.classical ?You have got to be kidding. You make strong allegations about reviewers without naming names and when asked to support your assertions you ask us to go on some Easter egg hunt to prove you right? Forget it. I don't think any reviewers said any of the things you claim about their hearing or level of reliability so I am not going to go looking for it. Feel free to prove me wrong, All you have to do is name the reviewers and quote them making the claims you say they made. And what 'claims I say they made', pray tell, are you referring to? Arny's claims are what is obviously being contested. But you chose to give it a blanket endorsement with this post IMO. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...da705e734ecf6? That link simply takes me to the top of the thread, sorry. But really, I have no control over your interpretive biases. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Who mixed New Beatles Let It Be Naked? | Pro Audio | |||
| Beatles' 'Let It Be' Is Getting 'Naked' | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
