Curzon+Schubert 960=devastating

[soliloquy]

try it.

[invictious]

Can anyone post the sheet music here?

and why the 960?
and why this thread?
and why me?
and why you?

WHY?

[counterpoint]

devastating - in which sense? positive or negative?

[furtwaengler]

You know, I have a Curzon 960 from one of the Decca boxes, and I've never listened to it. If I remember correctly, the timings suggest he didn't take the exposition repeat (But this is Schubert right?) 

I'll tell you my favorite in this piece hands down, is Sviatoslav Richter, who plays the repeat in addition to his extremely deliberate tempo. That exposition played an extra time, with the 2nd ending, one of the highlights of the piece not otherwise heard, prepares the conscience for the extraordinary Bruckneresque harmonic unfolding of the development...and it's all about the development! (Bruckneresque may characterize more, the G major D. 894 of which Richter is even more obsessive in his ways, but here it applies too.) Anyway...I rambleth. Do listen to any Richter performance of this (my favorite's in the big Prague box). You're head might explode!

(I will listen to the Curzon )

[mephisto]

(Bruckneresque may characterize more, the G major D. 984 of which Richter is even more obsessive in his ways, but here it applies too.)

You mean D. 894 right?

And I agree that Richter plays it beautifully, haven't heard Curzon btw.

[furtwaengler]

You mean D. 894 right?

And I agree that Richter plays it beautifully, haven't heard Curzon btw.

Yes, 894 of course! I've edited it.

[soliloquy]

Curzon > Richter on 960

[counterpoint]

Curzon > Richter on 960

tempo? volume? sensibilty? expressiveness?

[soliloquy]

tempo? volume? sensibilty? expressiveness?

Expressiveness.  His first movement may not be as legendary as Richter's, but I prefer his interpretation.  His second movement is just like...    (which happens to be my favorite movement)

[elevateme_returns]

who is Curzon?? never heard of him

[soliloquy]

who is Curzon?? never heard of him

Clifford Curzon.  How can you not have heard of him?

[mikey6]

How does 'devastating'= a positive comment?

[soliloquy]

How does 'devastating'= a positive comment?

How do you have the brain function to be able to type, yet not be able to understand that?

[thalberg]

How do you have the brain function to be able to type, yet not be able to understand that?

\

Haha.....you must be the smartest person in Alabama. 

[furtwaengler]

I listened to the Curzon today, with pleasure. It's a very dramatic reading, built from the bass up with great dynamic impact, and wonderful middle voicing - a bit outward (extroverted?) for an inward looking piece, but he pulled it off. His Schubert's got a temperament similar to the great string quartet recordings of the Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett, which you might like to try (especially the A minor D.804!).

Now Richter's 960 is still my favorite, perhaps because I see the piece more inwardly. Richter has a greater dynamic range (at least then what Decca gives in the Curzon - it may have been recorded too close to know, but I'm no expert) and picks his spots more. And yes, for the amazingly focused tone, seamless line and sense of mystery (or loneliness?), Richter's slow movement remains unsurpassed

But it's not a competition. I love this sonata and I'm glad for every experience with it, whether with Richter, Arrau, R. Serkin, Kempff, Firkusny, Annie Fischer, or whomever it might be. I'm certainly glad for this topic, otherwise I might not have heard Curzon's fine recording.   

[cloches_de_geneve]

(Bruckneresque may characterize more, the G major D. 894 of which Richter is even more obsessive in his ways, but here it applies too.)

NO, NO, NO

Taking 26 minutes for the first movement of D 894 is more grotesque than bruckneresque. It is one of Richter's less successful experiments.

[elevateme_returns]

How do you have the brain function to be able to type, yet not be able to understand that?

thats not really fair... the definition of devastating as an adjective is:

1. tending or threatening to devastate
2. satirical or ironic in an effective way

[elevateme_returns]

Clifford Curzon.  How can you not have heard of him?

omg i give up. how do you think i cant have heard of him??? and to think, youre calling that other guy stupid.

[soliloquy]

------

[elevateme_returns]

Have you noticed how EVERYONE keeps telling you that you're stupid?

sorry, are you saying that to yourself? youre not that stupid mate, dont worry. seriously, give yourself a break


I havent heard of him becuase I havent heard of him. does there need to be a how?

idiot. hah. go and listen to your modern music you weirdo

[mephisto]

Have you noticed how EVERYONE keeps telling you that you're stupid?

3rd funniest comment ever

He is a VERY respectable pianist when this is said.

[elevateme_returns]

 

but thanks anyway xx

[elevateme_returns]

Maybe that's how?  Because you said you didn't?  Idiot.

you know, to be fair, that doesnt REALLY make sense... so i havent heard of it, BECAUSE i said i havent.

its more, i said i havent heard of it because i actually havent heard of it. i still dont get where "how" comes into the equation. what did you expect me to say? with my ears?

[soliloquy]

He is a VERY respectable pianist when this is said.

I have only heard his Scarbo, and it is atrocious, both technically and interpretively.  Anyone who respects his recording has no ear for talent what-so-ever.  I can go into numerous specifics if necessary.

you know, to be fair, that doesnt REALLY make sense... so i havent heard of it, BECAUSE i said i havent.

its more, i said i havent heard of it because i actually havent heard of it. i still dont get where "how" comes into the equation. what did you expect me to say? with my ears?

Don't you claim to be some incredible English student who writes incredible essays?  How can this be true if you are so painfully ignorant to not just English grammar, but the comprehension of sentence structure?  Here, let me explain it to you piece by piece:

You said:

who is Curzon?? never heard of him

My reply:

Clifford Curzon.  How can you not have heard of him?

Your reply:

omg i give up. how do you think i cant have heard of him??? and to think, youre calling that other guy stupid.

This is where your first major error appears.  The connotation of this sentence, particularly with the use of "", in English, is that you are now saying you HAVE heard of him, and you were previously being sarcastic.  Your choice of sentence structure and punctation will put the stress on "heard of him???".  Instead, you want to have stress on "think".  Also, the fact that my question was OBVIOUSLY rhetoric in the first place makes this response even more ridiculously stupid.  Would anyone actually ask how it is technically possible for someone to not have heard of something?  That is ludicrous, and what little logic you are capable of using you can obviously not apply to the English language.


Then you continue, responding to this:

Maybe that's how?  Because you said you didn't?

With this incomprehensible trash:

you know, to be fair, that doesnt REALLY make sense... so i havent heard of it, BECAUSE i said i havent.

its more, i said i havent heard of it because i actually havent heard of it. i still dont get where "how" comes into the equation. what did you expect me to say? with my ears?

Bare in mind that you have once again failed to figure out what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has spoken the English language for approximately >5 days, in that your comment would have been understood as being sarcastic by 99.99999% of America and England, and probably most other countries where people have begun to speak English.  Half the people that 99.99999% doesn't cover are people with Asperger's, anyway.  But this is beside the point, because your failure to comprehend my fairly simple grammar would be the same either way.  Let me elaborate for your learning benefit.  "How" refers to "how" you haven't heard it, as quoted above, which was what you were referring to.  Now, because the answer would be "not with my ears", which is ridiculous, don't you think the question was rhetoric?

and to think, youre calling that other guy stupid.

Same thread, impartial observer:

Haha.....you must be the smartest person in Alabama.

Population of Alabama as per January 1st, 2006 according to the National Census: 4,599,030

[mikey6]

My we are arrogant!  I'm sorry we can't all have the 'brain function' that you have.  In my dictionary, devastate reads: to lay waste; ravage; render desolate.
Now perhaps if you would explain how exactly this relates to a performance of Schubert (more than just 'expression') and not insult and argue with people, I might see your point of view.

[soliloquy]

My we are arrogant!  I'm sorry we can't all have the 'brain function' that you have.  In my dictionary, devastate reads: to lay waste; ravage; render desolate.
Now perhaps if you would explain how exactly this relates to a performance of Schubert (more than just 'expression') and not insult and argue with people, I might see your point of view.

Who said it was more than an expression?  "Devastatingly beautiful" is a phrase I'm sure you've heard before; can it not be assumed this is the context in which I used the word?

[mikey6]

You replied to counterpoint's statement about how it is 'devastating' by mentioning 'expressiveness'.

'Devastatingly beautiful', yes, of course I've heard.  I'm sorry, but 'devastating' by itself is a word I would tend to take as a negative term and I'm not the only one (see 'counterpoint's' entry above).

[soliloquy]

You replied to counterpoint's statement about how it is 'devastating' by mentioning 'expressiveness'.

'Devastatingly beautiful', yes, of course I've heard.  I'm sorry, but 'devastating' by itself is a word I would tend to take as a negative term and I'm not the only one (see 'counterpoint's' entry above).

True; sorry if I was a bit harsh; if you look at a few of the threads at the top of this board you can see I'm being trolled by elevateme_returns and it's getting frustrating; I may have taken some of it out on you.  Sorry for that.  I just assumed it would be understood that that's the capacity in which I used the word.

[elevateme_returns]

I have only heard his Scarbo, and it is atrocious, both technically and interpretively.  Anyone who respects his recording has no ear for talent what-so-ever.  I can go into numerous specifics if necessary.

ok, so not only have you insulted me , but youve also insulted all the people that said good things about it. thanks. i'd love to hear the specifics however. would you care to give them? the interpretive ones, of course i know about my technical flaws.
and will you be uploading your recording anytime soon?

my teacher likes it. and hes good, so im happy.

Don't you claim to be some incredible English student who writes incredible essays?  How can this be true if you are so painfully ignorant to not just English grammar, but the comprehension of sentence structure?

no.... when did i claim to be an incredible english student who writes incredible essays? everyone in my school is an english student. im 16, its compulsory. i dont really know where the *** you got that from

Here, let me explain it to you piece by piece:

This is where your first major error appears.  The connotation of this sentence, particularly with the use of "", in English, is that you are now saying you HAVE heard of him, and you were previously being sarcastic.  Your choice of sentence structure and punctation will put the stress on "heard of him???".  Instead, you want to have stress on "think".  Also, the fact that my question was OBVIOUSLY rhetoric in the first place makes this response even more ridiculously stupid.  Would anyone actually ask how it is technically possible for someone to not have heard of something?  That is ludicrous, and what little logic you are capable of using you can obviously not apply to the English language.

You said:
Quote from: elevateme_returns on June 14, 2007, 09:39:52 PM
who is Curzon?? never heard of him

My reply:
Quote from: soliloquy on June 14, 2007, 09:40:44 PM
Clifford Curzon.  How can you not have heard of him?

Your reply:
Quote from: elevateme_returns on June 15, 2007, 09:05:23 PM
omg i give up. how do you think i cant have heard of him??? and to think, youre calling that other guy stupid.
Then you continue, responding to this
With this incomprehensible trash

Bare in mind that you have once again failed to figure out what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has spoken the English language for approximately >5 days, in that your comment would have been understood as being sarcastic by 99.99999% of America and England, and probably most other countries where people have begun to speak English.  Half the people that 99.99999% doesn't cover are people with Asperger's, anyway.  But this is beside the point, because your failure to comprehend my fairly simple grammar would be the same either way.  Let me elaborate for your learning benefit.  "How" refers to "how" you haven't heard it, as quoted above, which was what you were referring to.  Now, because the answer would be "not with my ears", which is ridiculous, don't you think the question was rhetoric?

you know, youve clearly spent lots of time on this, which is great! good for you mate. shows you have a life (cough ) but its a shame, because i really cant be bothered to read any of it as im not interested. but good job nonetheless! keep it up!

[franzliszt2]

yeh and soliliquy has only to offer academic essays on this forum and the crictical sense of an amateur. You say elevateme has no talent? haha yeh becasue you do? Proove it. Where do you study? You seem to have no artistic sense whatsoever, just stupidty of someone who has read some books. Why is his scarbo technically bad? have you played this piece? Obviously not, becasue if you had you would realise that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to play perfectly technically and keep it interesting. Who's scarbo do you like? let me guess...Gavrilov youtube vid?
You are so arogant!!

[elevateme_returns]

and soliloquy i do actually want the specifics please. only interpretive ones, that are so atrocious as you put it.

then you post your recording and we'll criticise yours together, ok?

[franzliszt2]

Ignore his comments, they'll probably be retard advice. like...uh..you slightly played the G# to long uh uhu uh. As he clearly has shown he can't express critcism thats actually knowledgable. And he calls people stupid hahaha

[elevateme_returns]

HEYYY WHERE ARE THESE SPECIFICS!!

maybe you could help, i dont know. i learnt it with martin roscoe, and a pupil of ravels'.
but i play it in my own way.

[furtwaengler]

Curzon played Gaspard?

Okay...seriously, from the perspective of a newbie, the demolition of this thread into this childish bickering is not at all flattering to what initially seemed a good board. How on earth can looking at a screen so rile up and disturb, that everything must be taken personally and responded to defensively?

It's natural that not everybody has the same experience listening and studying music, and so not everybody, including fine pianists (especially if young), have heard of Clifford Curzon. I've met graduate piano majors who've never heard of Scriabin! Maybe its inexplicable to those who value these, but isn't it enough that they have an interest? Why not take them at where they are and enjoy the discovery process?

All I'm asking is that folks be a little more patient and considerate toward one another, showing some respect with regard to our shared joys of music, for which we are so fortunate and blessed to have a special access to. Sound good?

Best,

David

[mephisto]

I agree David. We are all here because we love music and we love the piano. Why can't we just speak positive about the pianists and composers we like, instead of calling other pianists and composers bad things? If you have something bad yo say at leats try to be constructive.

Calling Liszt bad things etc is imature and is frankly terrible, considering how much Liszt has had to cope with in history.

Let us celebrate schubert and Curzon in this thread and leave everything else behind. At least all of us love the D 960, shouldn't we talk about that instead of calling other people bad words?

[elevateme_returns]

well hes being mean. he said my scarbo was atrocious! ouch

[moi_not_toi]

this is REALLY sad.
EVERYBODY DONT WORRY AND BE HAPPY FOR GODS SAKE!!!!
To be honest, I haven't heard of Curzon either. But then again, Richter isn't all that familiar to me either.

Soliloquy and elevateme: cool it! Go to your separate corners and stop calling each other names! Act like adults, not children (even though the children MY age don't act like this either, unless its a catfight, which is VERY uncivilised of them, which is something I know NEITHER of you are [uncivilised, that is])

Weeeeeeeeeeel, honestly, I don't think I'd like that Schubert work no matter HOW it was done, Curzon or not.

[elevateme_returns]

ok ok . im done here

[richard black]

Anyone who hasn't heard of Curzon should look him out in some record store (there's probably some stuff online, haven't time to go looking) because he was a very great interpreter in his relatively limited repertoire - most notably Mozart, Schubert and Brahms. I'm not saying everyone should like everything he did but he should definitely be heard. Very fine in chamber music too. He had a particularly beautiful sound and a quietly undemonstrative way which nevertheless seemed to get right to the heart of many works which often elude even the finest pianists.

[elevateme_returns]

I have only heard his Scarbo, and it is atrocious, both technically and interpretively.  Anyone who respects his recording has no ear for talent what-so-ever.  I can go into numerous specifics if necessary.

i would LOVE it if you could. only the interpretive ones, i know about my technical errors.

so yes it is necessary. fire away and tell me what makes it atrocious.

[elevateme_returns]

please

[elevateme_returns]

im gona keep bumping this so you see it, your comments could help me improve my playing

[soliloquy]

im gona keep bumping this so you see it, your comments could help me improve my playing

Well I was trying to ignore this thread, but I'm too busy right now; I will do it tonight.  So you can stop bumping.  (btw I'm in US so my "night" is probably different than yours)

[franzliszt2]

yeh whatever you mean you are going to ask someone who has some inteligence. You can;t find how to criticise elevates scarbo in a book or on google can you? Your comments are going to be so retarded I can see. I'm excited to hear them, I'm ion good need of a laugh right now. let me guess....Slightly rushed in bar... the score says mf u play slightly to softly.... uhhh

can you play scarbo?

[elevateme_returns]

Well no i just wanted to compare his thoughts with those of martin roscoe, marguerite long and david murray. but im looking forward to hearing them too.

remember i know about the technical errors in the piece, i was there.
i just want the interpretive points that make it 'atrocious'

[elevateme_returns]

bump

[franzliszt2]

BIG SUPER MEGA ULTRA BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on I'm desperate to hear you justify your childish comment. I really am. If you ask me your just trying to be clever

[elevateme_returns]

BUMP

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

Of for God's sakes stop it!

I have only heard his Scarbo, and it is atrocious, both technically and interpretively.  Anyone who respects his recording has no ear for talent what-so-ever.  I can go into numerous specifics if necessary.


Don't you claim to be some incredible English student who writes incredible essays?  How can this be true if you are so painfully ignorant to not just English grammar, but the comprehension of sentence structure?  Here, let me explain it to you piece by piece:

This is where your first major error appears.  The connotation of this sentence, particularly with the use of "", in English, is that you are now saying you HAVE heard of him, and you were previously being sarcastic.  Your choice of sentence structure and punctation will put the stress on "heard of him???".  Instead, you want to have stress on "think".  Also, the fact that my question was OBVIOUSLY rhetoric in the first place makes this response even more ridiculously stupid.  Would anyone actually ask how it is technically possible for someone to not have heard of something?  That is ludicrous, and what little logic you are capable of using you can obviously not apply to the English language.

First of all, no matter how skilled you may be, either technically or interpetively, you have no right to attack other's efforts and claim them as "atrocious." I think it is a given but I don't think that you comprehend this concept.

Who the hell cares, especially on a forum. I don't care at how advanced his or your English grammar is, or how comprehensive it may be, I care at what he has to say. Since you are so quick at attacking his playing, I am sure your playing would be top notch, given your repertoire.

All the rest you wrote in your post is pure trash. It is your usual trademark: demolish threads by attacking the poster's writing sentence by sentence, attempting to dismember each though into sentences and using your "advanced grammar" to try to sound superiour. Ultimately, you say nothing, as usual. I know that I previously said that I don't want to put my face into this fiasco, but you never stop. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??? What might you POSSIBLY gain from this? Is the thought that you "won" somehow pleasant to you? You mentioned in a thread that got deleted that you never start attacking and never provoke an argument. Well, here it is. I believe in this thread, you started an argument. You may wish to deny it, but hey, it is only you spending time on the internet and it is only me and others that are laughing at it.

I am sure that the reason that your comments are postponed is because you are fabricating some information that might make you sound smart or superior. Lets say that your "reasoning" gets through. You will gloat over a false victory, and to what avail? What will it bring you? If your input is of course veritable then I would need to give an appology. And no, I will not accept a responce such as "my recording is at MSN (or whatever) or ask such and such for proof."

To others, don't bump the thread. If "Soliloquy" (I am going to call him "John" from now on, seeing that it is his name) is so sure of himself he will not forget to post any kind of information here. 

[nicco]

Do not bump threads. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, making corrections or updates in a new post, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top of its forum.

Just leave it.