User talk:JackofOz/Archive 9
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Follow up
Hello. I received your comments on my Talk Page -- thanks. I will be away from the computer all day today (until very late tonight) ... and I will reply to your comments more fully then. In short -- however -- please give me 1 or 2 days to "clean up" that Posthumous Academy Award article that I started ... and then I will turn it over to you ... if you don't mind. It really is a mess and there are quite a few things I need to clean up before feeling comfortable having it posted. But I agree with you -- the Heath Ledger factor will make that a timely article to post very soon. So, as I said, if you can allow me a day or 2 to clean it, I will then let you have it to do as you wish. Many thanks for your understanding and patience. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
- Hello! Thanks for your patience. I finally posted the article here ---> List of posthumous Academy Award winners and nominees. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I would really appreciate your thoughts, comments, feedback, etc. Also, of course, feel free to add, update, and edit the article. I am anxious to hear your thoughts and opinions. Many thanks! Please let me know your thoughts on my Talk Page. Again, sorry that I took so long and, again, thanks for your patience! Best, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
The Guv'nor
Yeah, you're right. Sorry, I was working on a cite that she was sworn in at 1pm - in fact the ceremony began at 1pm with a parade and so on. Sorry, I didn't see the tense that it hadn't quite taken place as the headline was in the past tense. Hopefully Wensley won't get hit by a bus! --Canley (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Mary books
Back, with three books. Will give you the full review when I have time, and not feeling quite so woozy headed. Gwinva (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, metamorphosed into a sloth. Or perhaps it's a fit of depression, brought on by the sad realisation that WP can and does manage to exist without me. Anyway, will write a report! Gwinva (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Farewell Robert A
Thanks! MartinSFSA (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I wish I could say Auntie Jack was a relative of mine, but I can't. :) JackofOz (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I know it's been a long time but do you have any idea what your references were for this? Could you add some indication to the article? It looks correct but is totally unreferenced. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Olympics
Rubbing it in? Gwinva (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- He he. That must be your genetically-ingrained inferiority complex showing through. I actually meant it as a compliment, because a country that can go from nothing for 7 days to its greatest single day ever is obviously doing something right when it really matters. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can take full credit of course... (all that shouting at the TV: it had a particularly satisfying effect during the team pursuit last night). As for the inferiority, well, we've just become accustomed to Aussie taunts (last few sentences). Gwinva (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can take full credit of course... (all that shouting at the TV: it had a particularly satisfying effect during the
Prompted by the Reference Desk?
Improving my family tree, I see ;) Grutness...wha? 08:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Grutness. I've always liked his work - The Devil's Playground was particularly excellent, if you don't know it. His film career has been a bit patchy for some years, but I see from IMdB he'll be in Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Use of whom and who (Chifley page)
Hi, I corrected the grammar and you changed it back. Correct usage is "in homage to his predecessor and adversary, who (for all the previous decade's political quarrels) he had never ceased to respect as a person".
we say of whom, to whom, for whom.. i.e. when who is with a preposition. In this case there is no preposition : "who he had never ceased to respect" because who is the subject of the subordinate clause. This would be correct : "the friendship of whom he had always valued" : i.e. with a preposuition. See
- I must respectfully disagree. The fact that there's no preposition is irrelevant, a red herring. It is indeed a subordinate clause, but the subject of that clause is "he". The verb is "had [never] ceased to respect" and the object is "whom". Menzies had never ceased to respect Chifley. Thus, it's "he" and not "him" because this represents Menzies, the subject, the doer of the action, who's nominative. The recipient of the action is Chifley. Being the object, Chifley, or words that represent him, are in objective case. "Who/whom" represents Chifley. The objective case of "who" is "whom". Thus it has to be "whom". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Nationality/ethnicity
Greetings, Jack! Thought you might like to read what I just added
Hi mate, I have been recently working on the article Hughie Edwards and there is a section in the text regarding some controversy surrounding his knighthood. Looking back in the history, I have seen that you added the paragraph on 12 March 2004. I have not been able to find a reference to support this section, and was hoping you would be able to supply me with one? I have been advised to have the article nominated for A-class, and was worried that with the section being unreferenced that it might be challenged. If you could supply me with a reference I would appreciate it immensely, but if not I'll work something out. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I clearly remember this happening, and it made the news because it was considered very inappropriate for a governor (let alone their spouse) to be effectively asking for a knighthood; such communications, if made at all, should have been made privately, not publicly. Anyway, I've searched but can't find any reference to it online. If you want to delete my post, I'd have no objections. One day, though, it will turn up, and I will be vindicated. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the reply. Nar, I don't intend to delete the section; I believe it to be true. Thanks for having a look for a reference though, but if it does come under attack in the review (I have nominated it for GA) then I might then, but I hope not! Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for having a look and finding the site, but I think it's just a rip off of an old version of the article on Wikipedia. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jack, I just thought I would give you an update. I have been able to purchase a copy of Edwards' biography and it contains a paragraph on the knighthood controversy, so I have been able to reference the paragraph! Lol, thanks mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoever vs whomever
Ignoramus et ignorabimus: cases of verbs and, I suppose, tenses of nouns? I thought about a further comment to bolster yours, but sometimes, with some editors, the best one can do is sigh, and move on. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Verily, Bielle. Well, I'm going to take this opportunity for a rant before I sigh and move on. The discussion about visiting cards and misspelled correspondence caused me to reflect that communication is not just about the words and sentences the writer uses, and the meaning they want to convey. When they misspell words and use inappropriate punctuation and grammar, they're also communicating a separate message - they don't care. Well, that's the impression the reader gets, and first impressions are SO important. The trouble is, we can't sheet the blame home to the writers in every case, because these days they're simply not taught about many of the things that people of our generation took for granted. Or if it comes up in class, it's glossed over as if it's only really relevant to professional writers, and the great mass of people who use the language don't need to worry too much about it. It's as if spelling words correctly is some sort of arcane discipline that we shouldn't allow ourselves the luxury of indulging in, because life is too short. I mean, come on. Teachers have a responsibility to tell their charges that all writers, in all circumstances, should consider themselves professionals, and actually give a damn, whether they're being paid for it or not. Getting by with the bare minimum is a hopeless standard, and the results of these educational policies speak for themselves. The teachers themselves are typically young folk in their 20s, and they themselves were not taught what they should have been taught, and so on, all the way back to whenever society started to go so badly wrong. The other problem is that many readers of badly written correspondence are completely unaware it's badly written, because they come from the same educational cohort as the writers. They wouldn't know a run on sentence or a misplaced modifier if it hit them over the head. So, what we often have nowadays is the ignorant communicating with the ignorant. Thank God for you and me. There, I've said it. I know I'm preaching to the converted, but maybe someone else will read this and do something positive. Now, I'll sigh and move on. Thanks for your forbearance. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I feel ignorant myself when I read the likes of Angr. I didn't know that grammar could change so much in one lifetime. Whatever names the experts use, however, it is clear that some of us care to write as clearly as possible, and most of us don't - either "care" or "write as clearly as possible" now that I re-read that sentence. One of the factors is age; one of the others is luck. I had an amazing teacher when I was 11 and 12 who loved grammar and taught all of us to love it, too. If you were a student in either of the other two classes for this age level, you just didn't get the same teaching, and that was within a single elementary school. I make more mistakes now that I did 40 years ago, but 40 years ago I was en editor in a textbook publishing house, and was dealing with matters of grammar and style on a hourly basis. (And I still remember the applicant for an editorial job who was outraged enough to write to the president of the company when I wouldn't interview him because of the number of language errors in his initial letter. The rot had set in even then.) We do what we can, and are grateful that the choir listens. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nicely put, Bielle. Languages are dynamic, though, and shift -- sometimes subtly, sometimes radically. Both the brake of prescriptivism and the accelerator of descriptivism can be over-used. Case-endings in English are fading like eth and thorn did. They may linger for centuries more than necessary (see British monarchy, but all the fulminating that George Will can muster won't matter. The who/whom confusion is becoming too abstruse for some; I think the "everyone should open their book" battle has been won by the more pragmatic side. In other issues, I have strong opinions and hew to the notion that in the long run, we're all dead. — OtherDave (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nicely put, Bielle. Languages are dynamic, though, and shift -- sometimes subtly, sometimes radically. Both the brake of prescriptivism and the accelerator of descriptivism can be over-used. Case-endings in English are fading like eth and thorn did. They may linger for centuries more than necessary (see
S.57
Thanks, never knew it took 3! Learn something new every day. Timeshift (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxfordian, but otherwise a likeable person
Jack: just skimmed your user page. You've probably seen the articles referenced here, but if not -- years ago The Atlantic Monthly ran four articles on the Shakespeare/Oxford debate. I liked them so much I've saved the print copies. As a mathematical bonus, I think you'll enjoy The Ghost's Vocabulary. — OtherDave (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Outgoing
"calling both of them "outgoing" is not right - Milliner died"
I suppose he was outgoing in a other-worldly sense... Orderinchaos 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Riley Lee
Thanks for the heads up, Jack, and congratulations on a first-rate article. Now I'm even happier than before that I've been at the 2008 Shakuhachi Festival (and seen Lee in the flesh !). Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
- Hmmm. Well, all I can say is that it's nice to be invited; however, how anyone quite got the idea that I'm a UK Wikipedian is one of life's little mysteries. I live in Australia, on the other side of the world. There's a reason my user name is JackofOz. I'm not planning to be in London any time soon. Thanks anyway. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fact check
"Lyons becoming the first Australian to lead a party to three consecutive federal election wins" - Hughes/Nationalists? 1917, 1919, 1922? Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good Lord, how uncharacteristically silly of me. I did have a cite for this, but it just shows you can't believe everything you read. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I’d never really focussed much on that era, but I see that the Nationalists lost their majority in 1922 and had to form a coalition with the Country Party in order to stay in government, the price of which was Hughes’s resignation as leader and PM. It’s the only time in our history a coalition was formed after an election in order to maintain a parliamentary majority previously held by a single party. Hughes’s deputy Stanley Bruce became the PM; so while it could be said that Hughes’s party “won” the election, Hughes himself was a loser. Another interpretation is that Hughes did in fact remain PM after the election (albeit only for a short period; he may as well have lost the election from this point of view because all defeated incumbent PMs stay in office for a short period until the new PM is sworn in). Which ever way you look at it, it was very much a qualified win as far as Hughes was concerned.
- The first time an existing coalition under the same leader of the dominant party won 3 elections on the trot was 1937 (Lyons/Page). Menzies/Fadden (1949, 1951, 1954), Fraser/Anthony (1975, 1977, 1980) and Howard (1996, 1998, 2001; with Fisher for the first 2, Anderson for 2001) all repeated this effort.
- The first time a single party under the same leader won 3 elections on the trot was not till 1987 (Hawke – Labor).
- I also see that Howard is our only PM who ticked all the boxes: lost an election from Opposition (1987), won an election from Opposition (1996), won elections in government (1998, 2001, 2004), and lost an election as incumbent PM (2007). Fascinating when you start to analyse some of these things. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Addinsell / Douglas
I think you should re-evaluate some of Roy's input into Addinsell's scores.
"From December 1935 to January 1943 I orchestrated every bar of all Richard Addinsell's music for films and broadcasts. I must state firmly that I did not compose any of it. We developed a method wherby he would play his music on the piano (he could stretch a twelfth with either hand), and I would rapidly take it down to paper as he played. His contribution to the orchestrations was to say 'this is strings only, that is oboe, give that to the horns' and so forth, and I would eventually take my draft away and complete scoring in all details..."
Roy Douglas, ICRC Autumn Edition 1999
Beckus (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Beckus. Thanks for that very interesting bit of information.
- I've taken the opportunity to re-evaluate the current wording and I don't believe it's inconsistent with what we're saying about Douglas's contribution. Nowhere do we state that he composed any of the music in the sense of coming up with tunes independently of Addinsell. He orchestrated Addinsell's ideas, with guidance from him about which instruments played what. But my reading of your quote is that Addinsell did not specify the complete instrumentation down to the last triangle - it was broad brush strokes and main instruments only, which Douglas had to fill out with his own knowledge of what worked best. That's what I understand by "...I would eventually take my draft away and complete scoring in all details...". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but remember that Dimitri Tiomkin comunicated in nearly the same way to Addinsell. How a film composer comunicates with an orchestrator differs. Some just hum (Chaplin, Lai), some give very detailed sketches (Goldsmith) and Tiomkin and Addinsell found their own methods to get the message across. Still orchestration is neither composition or arranging.
Beckus (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, very interesting info about how methods vary. We're in unison about the distinctions between composition, orchestration and arranging. So, I'm a little unsure as to what it is that you have an issue with. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
RFC Bates method article for 2 important issues
Dear JackofOz ,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article.
Paragraph :
- 22 RFC Nr : 1 change of title Bates method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement
- 23 RFC No : 2 Removal of sourced quotes
( See also par 24 : Some objective factual information of the past and now and the discussion with Ronz on my talkpage )Seeyou (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I just realised...
…I know we all "know" that Rachmaninov spelled his name Rachmaninoff in the West, but do we have a ref for it? —
- Hi Spring. I googled "Rachmaninoff spelling" and the first hit was this. It’s not a primary source, though. (And it might mean we have spell his patronymic Vassilievitch (with a t - ugh!), because there’s probably an argument that if we’re governed by his own spelling of his surname, we should also be governed by his own spelling of his patronymic. So, being a secondary source, I discount it.) However, I found this, which contains a photo of his signature – “S. Rachmaninoff” – and a small discussion of the issue, which tells us this is how his name appears in his ID papers, on his tombstone, and used by his heirs to this day. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Eventuationologicalic Aside
Ultimately it's all style, other than fifth-leg usage. (Abraham Lincoln reportedly asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" His answer: four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.) I'm even open to the possibility that perfectly sensible people use "eventuate," though I'm highly skeptical that it has the kind of play outside the U.S. that "whilst" has in the U.K.
This isn't to argue; I liked the remark about macassar oil. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Rock on
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
For being such an amazing ) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
Great Help
Hello Jack!
I can always count on you for a great answer :). You've given me a lot to work with in my "Classical Piano" question. What did you start out with? Do any of your recommendations lend themselves especially to a beginner? I do like Bach, and his Brandenburg Concertos were something I very much enjoyed. I also liked the other stuff too, and that's the problem. If you had to pick one piece, one CD, which would it be, and what label and conductor? I'd really like to have one to start out with, because when I think of all those composers, my head starts to spin :). Just from listening to a few clips, the Rachmaninoff seems pretty cool, but that's just with about three minutes of sample pieces. I just thought I'd mention it, but don't let that influence your response too much. It is kind of like that with the orchestral stuff as well. Basically with that, I just started buying what people said was "great" classical, and it seemed to work out well. Thanks again for the help Jack! As usual, I can count on your expertise.
Mike MAP91 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments, Mike. I was immersed in classical music from an early age, from listening to it on radio (which I still do much/most of the time). I guess the composer I was most strongly attracted to was Chopin, and when I started learning the piano (at age 11; I was a late starter) it was his music that I focussed on as much as anyone's. It's hard to pick a single CD, or nominate any particular works out of the ones I've already mentioned. My best suggestion would be to pick a pianist who's got very good (or better) reviews, and again, selecting just one from the literally hundreds of great pianists is a really hard ask. Pianists who've been particularly renowned for their Chopin playing would include Arthur Rubinstein, Krystian Zimerman (both Poles, like Chopin), and Maurizio Pollini. There are many, many others, but you simply can't go wrong with any of these 3. Just pick any CD that mentions the words "Chopin" and any of those 3 names, and you'll be on a winner. Maybe a disc of selected works that give you an overall feel for what Chopin’s like. That's solo piano. These 3 pianists only played with sympathetic conductors, so if you want to hear Chopin’s 2 concertos, their involvement would be the guiding principle. I was also particularly attracted to Sergei Rachmaninoff, and if you want to hear arguably the most popular concertos in the entire concerto repertoire, listed to his 2nd and 3rd concertos. The 2nd was written after a period of deep depression after a failed symphony, and he only got back on the composing track with the help of a hypnotist, to whom he dedicated the concerto. Did you ever see the movie Shine? Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto ("the Rach 3", as they called it) played a particularly strong role in the story. Great movie. Then there's his Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, for piano and orchestra. It consists of 24 variations on a theme, and the 18th Variation has become particularly famous in its own right (as it should). As with most things, you only really discover what you like in music by listening to lots of different things and seeing which ones appeal and which ones don't. It’s different for everyone, and it therefore can only be trial and error. But make a start. Once you’ve started, there’s no going back and the vistas just keep on opening up. For example, I’ve heard of George Lloyd by reputation, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard any of his music. But now that you’ve mentioned him alongside Bach and Mendelssohn, I will seek him out and explore what he has to offer. Reading about the background to the music and the circumstances in which the composers wrote their stuff is always helpful too, and Wikipedia is excellent for that. I hope this is helpful. Cheers. PS. You mentioned William Bolcom. Try to get a hold of his "Three Ghost Rags". Wonderful. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Jack,
Thanks for the further help on the subject. I will definitely be purchasing something by either Chopin or Rachmaninoff. If I go with a Chopin first, it will be performed by one of the three pianists that you recommended. I just have to figure out what to go with first! I have never seen the movie Shine, but now that you mention it, I will definitely try to rent it. It sounds like a very interesting one. I will also listen to some more radio (as I mentioned in the help desk article, we have WQXR 96.3 FM here, which is supposedly one of the greats. Thanks again, and all the best!
Mike MAP91 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Australian bios
Yes I've just been on New Page Patrol. Good to see some decent articles coming in today. I hope you don't feel offended by me adding the tags but I spotted some neutrality issues on quick scanning it. Perhaps it needs to be tone down in places to avoid
The little
"the little I know" -- LOL, Jack, you're too modest. :) Funny thing though, it was by listening to classical radio as a kid that I learned the little I know too ... Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're too kind. I'm sure that's many people's experience, Antandrus. I'd be sad if TV were abolished (not that I watch a great deal of it), but if radio were abolished I think I'd cut my throat. I really meant what I said about what little I know. Sure, I've managed to learn all the core stuff that most aficionados are aware of, but I am constantly finding out about new composers, new works - well, not necessarily new at all, but new to me. See the above thread about George Lloyd, for example. I know his name, and a little about his life, but to my knowledge I've never heard a note of his music. About 2 years ago I acquired the score for the complete 555 Scarlatti sonatas. There's a lifetime's study in that lot alone. The vast majority of them I had never heard anywhere. Btw, can you recommend a piano recording of the complete set, if it exists. Various people have done bits and pieces. I know Scott Ross did them all on a harpsichord, but that's not my thing, I'm afraid. (And even if I did enjoy the harpsichord in more than 2-minute stretches, I probably wouldn't listen to Scott Ross anyway because he said that Glenn Gould knew nothing about Bach !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I actually don't have a recommendation on the Scarlatti -- I've only got selections. Anthony Newman on harpsichord, and ... and ... can't find it now; someone else, somewhere in this heap of CDs. Perversely I prefer them on the piano, not sure why, especially considering how the "crush chords" really don't work on one. -- Hearing Glenn Gould play (and sing) the WTC and Goldberg Variations was a formative experience for me; that music was magical; it had something I wanted, couldn't touch, knew was there but was just out of my kid reach ... still is, in fact: there's still more to be found on every hearing. That first recording of the Goldberg Variations I think is one of the Himalaya peaks in performance history. -- Speaking of current composers, what the heck is Peter Sculthorpe up to these days? I'll never forget the excitement of first hearing his music when I was in graduate school: seemed like a completely fresh and new voice. I live for those ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't keep close tabs on most living composers. The last major new work by Sculthorpe I can recall hearing was his Requiem (2004), with a prominent part for didgeridoo. Fascinating. Not quite my scene, but fascinating. I'm always interested in what Elena Kats-Chernin brings out, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
date linking
Hi; you say "date linking is now deprecated". By whom? Grant | Talk 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I should have said. It's not my rule but that of WP:MOS. The word is gradually getting out there. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Chopin
Hello again Jack! I've looked through Amazon.com extensively for Chopin material, and I have found a great amount. I wanted to ask your opinion before I made my choice though. The main ones I've looked at are the Etudes, the Polonaises, the Preludes, and the Nocturnes. Which would give me the best introduction and overview of Chopin? I saw many played by Pollini as well as Rubenstein. I also saw a group of Nocturnes by Ivan Moravec, but you did not mention him. Just by listening quickly, Pollini's style seemed to appeal to me. It seemed warmer and more accessible for some reason. Maybe it was my imagination, or maybe it was just the clip that Amazon picked :). I really enjoyed his playing of the Preludes (Deutsche Grammophon) at first listen. Would I do well going with these? I think it would be best to purchase a CD that just contained a complete set of one type. There is an edition with the Preludes, Etudes, and Polonaises (all complete) played by Pollini, but I'm afraid it would be overwhelming. What do you think? Thanks!!!
Mike MAP91 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Mike. OK, if I had to choose between the 4 types you've mentioned, I'd go with the Etudes (flashy and brilliant) and the Nocturnes (dreamy and lyrical). They could be seen as representing the daytime and the night time respectively. For an introduction to Chopin, I still think a CD with examples of different types of pieces would give you a better overall picture of him. If the Etudes or the Nocturnes as a genre don't particularly appeal to you, you'll end up with a CD you probably won't play very much; whereas if it contained a ballade, a couple of Valses, some Mazurkas, Nocturnes, and basically a mixture of things, it would be more accessible and you'd find yourself playing it often. But that's your call, of course. Two of the polonaises are particularly famous - the "Military" Polonaise (A major, Op. 40/1) and the "Drum" or "Heroic" Polonaise (A flat, Op. 53 - from memory). I'm sure you would recognise them, and I can imagine you saying "Oh, so that's what that tune is; I've heard it lots of times but never know what it was called". The Preludes are haunting, but are written in a somewhat ecletic mixture of styles. For me, they're not for everyday listening; whereas I could listen to the Etudes and the Scherzi every day and never tire of them. And don't forget the Valses and Mazurkas. Chopin himself felt the mazurka was his natural home territory, the mazurka being the national dance of his homeland Poland. He wrote only 4 ballades, 4 scherzi and only 1 example of a Barcarolle and some other things. But he wrote well over 50 mazurkas, all through his composing life. Ivan Moravec has never been on my personal list of favourite pianists, but he is very highly regarded and very popular, and I'm sure you'd have no reason to be disappointed in his playing. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Chopin/Music 2
Hello Jack,
Just one question before I purchase (I'm sorry to keep up the suspense): I've found two versions which I enjoy: the Perahia Etudes (Sony) CD and the Pollini Etudes (DG) CD. There is also the Pollini Etudes/Preludes/Polonaises CD. I might want to purchase the Story Of Chopin In Words And Music CD, which includes many different varieties of Chopin's music as well as his history. This is performed by Ingrid Haebler, and it is $2.98, so it won't be a burden to purchase another one or two CDs. There were also the Piano Favourites/2 or Best of Chopin (both Naxos) performed by Idil Biret, the Favorite Piano Works (Decca), performed by Ashkenazy, and Best of Chopin (Philips), by various performers. Maybe the Philips one will give me a more dynamic view, as different pieces are performed by different pianists. I guess any of those would give me a good overview also. If I go with the Etudes/Preludes/Polonaises CD, I will get a good (though almost exhaustive) view of many of his works, but his "greatest hits" CDs are probably more accessible. I did look at some Rubinsteins, but they all come in box sets, and most of them are with full orchestra, like you said. Maybe you could take a look at the links I gave and tell me which ones have the best selections? What do you think?
Thanks! Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. - I see the names Horowitz, Arrau, Ashkenazy, and Ohlsson or Pires (less frequently) floating around. I just wanted to know what you thought of them as Chopin performers, as they appear quite a lot in the listings of CDs. Also, have you read about George Lloyd yet? He's a very interesting character (What other composer do you know that grew mushrooms and carnations!?), and I really enjoyed his 5th Symphony. It was a great introduction into the classical world for me.
P.P.S. - I took your advice and listened to WQXR last night...I heard a really great piece by Mahler (his Third Symphony, as well as Handel's Symphony No. 82. I am very happy I tuned in for an hour or so. I really enjoyed both of these pieces. I also wanted to share something I found surprising as I entered the classical world. I picked up a copy of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos by I Musici (Philips) in early August. They included two of his violin concertos (A minor and E major). I enjoyed the Concertos, and I was actually going to skip the two Violin Concertos, as I never thought in a million years that I would enjoy violin music. It turns out his Violin Concerto in E major is one of my favorite pieces in classical so far. It just resonates with me. And to think I was going to skip it! I guess it just goes to show you to always keep an open mind. I don't think I'll ever think about skipping an item on a CD again. I could be missing out on a new favorite :).
Hello Jack,
After thinking about it, I decided to just take the plunge. I purchased the The Best of Chopin (Philips). I feel it will give me a good overview of Chopin, like you recommended. It will be here in 5 to 7 days, and so I'll tell you how it is when it gets here. I am looking forward to finally putting it into the CD player after much deliberation :). After I listen through the CD thoroughly, I will pick out another, more comprehensive CD of my favorite type of music, by one of the pianists whom you recommended. Thanks again for all the help, and all the best!
Mike MAP91 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I was going to respond to your first message today, but then another came, and another, and another .... So I decided to hold fire till I thought you'd finally worked out what you wanted to say. :) But I'm glad to hear you've taken the plunge. I will be interested in your reaction. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about that. It seemed like just when I felt I included everything, I thought of something else to put down :). I never knew how to include external links until I wrote this talk section, so at least I improved my Wiki skills. Amazon said I should get the CD Wednesday. Thanks again for all the help! I'll let you know what I think as soon as I listen.
- Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)