Why would we listen to you play when we can listen to Feinberg?

[werq34ac]

I agree shared experience is all that counts.  Can you share experience with a composer you 'can't either play with or talk to'?  i.e. one you 'don't know or care for as a person'? 

As for genius, I'm referring to a quality that stands apart from the man, that is above the individual as in men of genius.  Do you find that in your friends?  My guess is it's not something many look for let alone find.

Does your Prime Minister deserve more respect?  Does Nelson Mandela?  Gandhi?  The Queen?  In my book respect is earned.

I actually agree with you on this point. Geniuses should be respected, although they may have nasty personalities. Apparently Chopin was a jerk. And for sure Wagner hated Jews.

Although if my friend had a concert the same day as someone famous, I would probably go to my friend's concert (unless I had free tickets to see this famous person...)

Music may be important, and genius DOES deserve respect, but not at the cost of your friends. Just my opinion.

[jesc]

Of course being yelled at isn't fun. But there's not much you can learn from praise, and a lot you can learn from criticism.

Exactly the reason why I noted that I became better.

The discussion has crossed the line into preference. And preference is not subject to debate but by personal choice. Someone prefers to listen to their friend, that's their personal choice which is not shared by many. I may prefer the performance of my friend but not everyone will share such sentiment.

"Why would we listen to you play when we can listen to Feinberg?"

Most likely his friends would like to hear him play over Feinberg and the generalized question fails unless you want to enumerate the scope of the "we" in the sentence. The question then becomes useless since it is answerable by "I prefer to do so." period. 

[werq34ac]

Just making sure keyboardclass isn't saying, "my friend has a recital tonight but why should I go when I can just listen to my CDs of Feinberg?"

[ajspiano]

The discussion has crossed the line into preference

Really the question is rhetorical - he's just trying to make people think about their playing and figure out how they can improve - or he's trolling as a left over from the bach is a bastard thread.

Whoever "you" is in the question, is either technical and musically competent, in which case the answer is because "I like pianist x better" - or they are not so competent and the answer is "because feinberg is a better pianist"

And there will never be a great deal of discussion relevant to it unless we were to specify who "you" is going to be for the purpose of the discussion.

[jesc]

I would rather hear a flawed version by someone that I know, than a flawless version by a well known pianist.

Compare these.

Whoever "you" is in the question, is either technical and musically competent, in which case the answer is because "I like pianist x better" - or they are not so competent and the answer is "because feinberg is a better pianist"

The first statement doesn't judge by competence but by friendship. The second statement considers competence.

The decision then rests on the person who is going to listen, is he a friend? If he's a friend then you apply the first statement. If he's not a friend then you apply the second statement.

This is the point I wanted to clarify with the "we" (a.k.a. the listeners, the audience). If you remove the "friends" listening in the name of friendship, then we have something to debate about, mainly competence.   

Unfortunately,

he's just trying to make people think about their playing and figure out how they can improve

Birba and the others might have that spark to see the positive light but I don't share that. I hope this clarifies, the specific case the last paragraph of my post above refers to.

[general disarray]

Exactly the reason why I noted that I became better.

The discussion has crossed the line into preference. And preference is not subject to debate but by personal choice. Someone prefers to listen to their friend, that's their personal choice which is not shared by many. I may prefer the performance of my friend but not everyone will share such sentiment.

"Why would we listen to you play when we can listen to Feinberg?"

Most likely his friends would like to hear him play over Feinberg and the generalized question fails unless you want to enumerate the scope of the "we" in the sentence. The question then becomes useless since it is answerable by "I prefer to do so." period. 

I assume you think you are being intellectual?  That this issue even has merit?  The original posting was bait:  a troll fishing.  Angry and jealous that he hasn't found his place in the sun worthy of his grandiose vision of himself.  And you are arguing his "point?"  Or arguing against his point?  Try practicing.  You'll be less tedious than him if you do.   

[general disarray]

Apparently Chopin was a jerk. And for sure Wagner hated Jews.

If I were one of Chopin's heirs, I would sue you for libel.  A "jerk?"  Provide evidence.  Wagner, a man who "hated Jews?"  Are you aware Wagner hired the greatest Jewish conductors of his time to conduct and produce his music dramas?  He had the greatest respect for Jewish musicians.  Wagner's objection to Judaism was related to his mission to develop nationalistic traits in music.  It was the 19th Century, and the rise of nationalism, and the passion for the illusion of nationalistic identities for peoples of shared races, genotypes and geographical origins.  Wagner's argument against Judaism could be summed up in his appraisal of Mendelssohn, a cosmopolitan genius by any standard who's musical style was NOT nationalistic, but international.  It went against the current trend in Europe at that time.  And Wagner criticized Jews for their very assimilation into European society, their very ability to sound multi-national, not particular.  He did not hate Jews.  

Truly, you exemplify Alexander Pope's assertion that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

[lostinidlewonder]

Truly, a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Making things up is a lot more fun. Just like this thread, the OP said something nasty in another thread then some other member mentioned that they could read it in another way, then he just ran with it. I guess people find it fun to make things up, even more fun when people help you make it up lol.

[jesc]

If my previous post was taken to be intellectual, I can't imagine the reaction when I actually put an effort into being intellectual. 

There were some reasonable points ajspiano and wer34qc put up. And to me I found that worthy of discussion. I know what this thread is, I was there back in the Audition Room.

Just like what lostindlewonder said, the OP got away, specifically why I mentioned before that I don't buy that interpretation. Specifically why I answered the "topic's question" a few posts above.

But if there's a good debate that can be salvaged from this why not? However, if the community wants this thread to die then so be it.   

[keyboardclass]

Just making sure keyboardclass isn't saying, "my friend has a recital tonight but why should I go when I can just listen to my CDs of Feinberg?"

I would take a live performance, if it had some value, over a CD.  Remember, the orginal comment referred to choices between youtube vids.

[keyboardclass]

And there will never be a great deal of discussion relevant to it unless we were to specify who "you" is going to be for the purpose of the discussion.

Yes there will as folks, you've missed the point.  THE WORLD HAS CHANGED.  We now have at our fingertips superb performances of nearly everything - that's happened in the last 10 years.  It's changed the meaning of recorded peformance.   Don't you folks remember before how magical, impossible more like, it was to have people listen to your recordings?  Now they sit alongside Rubinstein, Horowitz, even Brahms!  with distributal (if that's a word) parity.  At the click of the mouse they're all out there.  It's more than a step change, it's a different beast altogether and as usual mankind is sleepwalking into it.

Krystian Zimerman says the only reason for releasing a recording is if it enriches the market.  I suppose we could ask that question instead.  How does your recording enrich the market?

[daro]

If I were one of Chopin's heirs, I would sue you for libel.  A "jerk?"  Provide evidence.  Wagner, a man who "hated Jews?"  Are you aware Wagner hired the greatest Jewish conductors of his time to conduct and produce his music dramas?  He had the greatest respect for Jewish musicians.  Wagner's objection to Judaism was related to his mission to develop nationalistic traits in music.  It was the 19th Century, and the rise of nationalism, and the passion for the illusion of nationalistic identities for peoples of shared races, genotypes and geographical origins.  Wagner's argument against Judaism could be summed up in his appraisal of Mendelssohn, a cosmopolitan genius by any standard who's musical style was NOT nationalistic, but international.  It went against the current trend in Europe at that time.  And Wagner criticized Jews for their very assimilation into European society, their very ability to sound multi-national, not particular.  He did not hate Jews.  

Truly, you exemplify Alexander Pope's assertion that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Oh, the irony of your quoting Alexander Pope. It's obvious you've never read even a single one of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of vicious, monstrous things that Wagner wrote and said about the Jews throughout his entire life. You obviously haven't even read his most famous anti-semitic diatribe, Jewishness in Music; if you had read it, and are possessed of an IQ greater than zero, you would have noticed that it's not about music, but about Jews. (Wagner explains that Jews are not capable of being musicians, and his objection to Jewish music is not that it's "internationalistic", but rather that it's just a mass of barnyard cacophony and no further attention need be paid to it). Jewishness in Music (among thousands of Wagner's other writings and comments) is about how Jews are not really human beings like the rest of us, that normal people feel a natural sense of revulsion in the presence of Jews because, first of all, they're physically ugly, and they speak in a kind of disgusting gibberish that normal people rightfully find offensive etc., etc., etc.. Jews, he explained over and over and over and over and over again, lack human feelings and therefore cannot be musicians, or artists of any kind, because they have no way of creating or even recognizing those inner feelings and experiences that normal people have in response to Art. (This is why, Wagner explains, that only in the rarest cases, will you ever see a Jew on the stage; they can't express what they are incapable of feeling, and no audience would be fooled for a minute. Wagner had a bit of a chuckle over this assertion years later when he republished Jewishness in Music under his own name. He explained to his friends and family that since the Jews had now managed to infiltrate human society so completely, that you could actually now see Jews on stages even throughout Germany, something he said he could literally never have imagined when he was young). Basically, what worried Wanger was not "internationalist" Jewish music, which he didn't believe even existed, but that the Jews were secretly taking over the world, and that Jewish "taste" in music and art, i.e, their alien, subhuman attitudes were being imposed on the decent people of Europe.

Well, what about Mendelssohn. Wagner despised Mendelssohn personally and while he admitted he did write a few, I repeat, a few nice pieces, he thought the rest of his work was worthless trivial garbage. Again, this had nothing to do with nationalism vs internationalism. Wagner especially liked the Hebrides Overture, which he described as a perfect landscape in music. But, what was perfect about it, Wagner explained, was that it was so completely devoid of any human content, and of course this is because, as Wagner tells us, Mendelssohn, being a Jew, lacked all human feelings and couldn’t have put any human content into his work even if he'd wanted to. In fact, the case of Mendelssohn simply proved his oft-stated point about how clever Jews can be when it comes to copying their superiors.

As for these "greatest Jewish conductors", there was one, just one, no plural here, one Jewish conductor, Hermann Levi, who Wagner respected because, as he often explained, Levi didn't change his last name the way so many other Jews did when they wanted to infiltrate human society. Levi is an interesting case, and books can be written about his relation to Wagner; basically he recognized Wagner's musical genius and felt privileged to be on the ground floor as it were, but he did so at the cost of having to put up with an unceasing amount of unspeakble abuse.


As for the other Jews who played in the orchestra at Bayreuth, it is true that Wagner did not care about their religion as long as they could play. One of his bitterest memories was his attempt to stage Tristan in Vienna when he had to abort the thing after 70 rehearsals because the musicians simply couldn't handle it. Wagner traveled throughout Europe extensively, taking in every musical performance of any type that he could, keeping a lookout for talented musicians who he thought would actually be capable of realizing his vision of Bayreuth. If some of them were Jews, well, you had to take what you could get. You want to claim that Wagner's benevolence toward his Jewish employees meant he didn't hate Jews, then you'd expect to find the same attitude towards his Jewish audiences, the multitudes of Jews then and now who loved Wagner's music and were some of his greatest fans. "Those Jews", Wagner said, "are like flies. The more you push them away, the more they keep coming back." And while Wagner was exhorting and praising those Jewish musicians in the pit during rehearsals for Parsifal, he was simultaneously writing vicious letters to King Ludwig II, raging about what a horrible thing it was that there would almost certainly be Jews in the audiences, polluting the atmosphere of his pure and noble work.

Anyway, let's let Wagner have the last word (which he always loved to have). In 1851, Liszt wrote Wagner a letter, and after several paragraphs of business matters, he asks, " Can you tell me, under the seal of the most absolute secrecy, whether the famous article on the Jews in music ("Das Judenthum in der Musik") in Brendel's paper is by you?"

Wagner replies, "You ask me about the 'Judenthum'. You must know that the article is by me. Why do you ask? Not from fear, but only to avoid that the Jews should drag this question into bare personality, I appear in a pseudonymous capacity. I felt a long-repressed hatred for this Jewry, and this hatred is as necessary to my nature as gall is to the blood. An opportunity arose when their damnable scribbling annoyed me most, and so I broke forth at last. It seems to have made a tremendous impression, and that pleases me, for I really wanted only to frighten them in this manner; that they will remain the masters is as certain as that not our princes, but the bankers and the Philistines, are nowadays our masters."  Etc., etc., etc., etc.

[general disarray]

Oh, the irony of your quoting Alexander Pope. It's obvious you've never read even a single one of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of vicious, monstrous things that Wagner wrote and said about the Jews throughout his entire life. You obviously haven't even read his most famous anti-semitic diatribe, Jewishness in Music; if you had read it, and are possessed of an IQ greater than zero, you would have noticed that it's not about music, but about Jews. (Wagner explains that Jews are not capable of being musicians, and his objection to Jewish music is not that it's "internationalistic", but rather that it's just a mass of barnyard cacophony and no further attention need be paid to it). Jewishness in Music (among thousands of Wagner's other writings and comments) is about how Jews are not really human beings like the rest of us, that normal people feel a natural sense of revulsion in the presence of Jews because, first of all, they're physically ugly, and they speak in a kind of disgusting gibberish that normal people rightfully find offensive etc., etc., etc.. Jews, he explained over and over and over and over and over again, lack human feelings and therefore cannot be musicians, or artists of any kind, because they have no way of creating or even recognizing those inner feelings and experiences that normal people have in response to Art. (This is why, Wagner explains, that only in the rarest cases, will you ever see a Jew on the stage; they can't express what they are incapable of feeling, and no audience would be fooled for a minute. Wagner had a bit of a chuckle over this assertion years later when he republished Jewishness in Music under his own name. He explained to his friends and family that since the Jews had now managed to infiltrate human society so completely, that you could actually now see Jews on stages even throughout Germany, something he said he could literally never have imagined when he was young). Basically, what worried Wanger was not "internationalist" Jewish music, which he didn't believe even existed, but that the Jews were secretly taking over the world, and that Jewish "taste" in music and art, i.e, their alien, subhuman attitudes were being imposed on the decent people of Europe.

Well, what about Mendelssohn. Wagner despised Mendelssohn personally and while he admitted he did write a few, I repeat, a few nice pieces, he thought the rest of his work was worthless trivial garbage. Again, this had nothing to do with nationalism vs internationalism. Wagner especially liked the Hebrides Overture, which he described as a perfect landscape in music. But, what was perfect about it, Wagner explained, was that it was so completely devoid of any human content, and of course this is because, as Wagner tells us, Mendelssohn, being a Jew, lacked all human feelings and couldn’t have put any human content into his work even if he'd wanted to. In fact, the case of Mendelssohn simply proved his oft-stated point about how clever Jews can be when it comes to copying their superiors.

As for these "greatest Jewish conductors", there was one, just one, no plural here, one Jewish conductor, Hermann Levi, who Wagner respected because, as he often explained, Levi didn't change his last name the way so many other Jews did when they wanted to infiltrate human society. Levi is an interesting case, and books can be written about his relation to Wagner; basically he recognized Wagner's musical genius and felt privileged to be on the ground floor as it were, but he did so at the cost of having to put up with an unceasing amount of unspeakble abuse.


As for the other Jews who played in the orchestra at Bayreuth, it is true that Wagner did not care about their religion as long as they could play. One of his bitterest memories was his attempt to stage Tristan in Vienna when he had to abort the thing after 70 rehearsals because the musicians simply couldn't handle it. Wagner traveled throughout Europe extensively, taking in every musical performance of any type that he could, keeping a lookout for talented musicians who he thought would actually be capable of realizing his vision of Bayreuth. If some of them were Jews, well, you had to take what you could get. You want to claim that Wagner's benevolence toward his Jewish employees meant he didn't hate Jews, then you'd expect to find the same attitude towards his Jewish audiences, the multitudes of Jews then and now who loved Wagner's music and were some of his greatest fans. "Those Jews", Wagner said, "are like flies. The more you push them away, the more they keep coming back." And while Wagner was exhorting and praising those Jewish musicians in the pit during rehearsals for Parsifal, he was simultaneously writing vicious letters to King Ludwig II, raging about what a horrible thing it was that there would almost certainly be Jews in the audiences, polluting the atmosphere of his pure and noble work.

Anyway, let's let Wagner have the last word (which he always loved to have). In 1851, Liszt wrote Wagner a letter, and after several paragraphs of business matters, he asks, " Can you tell me, under the seal of the most absolute secrecy, whether the famous article on the Jews in music ("Das Judenthum in der Musik") in Brendel's paper is by you?"

Wagner replies, "You ask me about the 'Judenthum'. You must know that the article is by me. Why do you ask? Not from fear, but only to avoid that the Jews should drag this question into bare personality, I appear in a pseudonymous capacity. I felt a long-repressed hatred for this Jewry, and this hatred is as necessary to my nature as gall is to the blood. An opportunity arose when their damnable scribbling annoyed me most, and so I broke forth at last. It seems to have made a tremendous impression, and that pleases me, for I really wanted only to frighten them in this manner; that they will remain the masters is as certain as that not our princes, but the bankers and the Philistines, are nowadays our masters."  Etc., etc., etc., etc.

You might pass this inflammatory information onto Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, two contemporary examples of great conductors of Wagner's works -- who happen to be Jewish.   As I am. 

Anti-semitism, as disgusting as it is, is a natural outgrowth of the Holy Roman Catholic Church's ascendancy after the decline of the Roman Empire.  Those who the Holy Church decided were the killers of Jesus Christ were hated forever.  (An interesting outcome for a religion that espoused "forgiveness.")  Therefore, Christians were armed with holy hatred and despised the Jew, the killer of Christ.

Jews, therefore, were hated by Christians.

That Wagner, a product of the 19th century, one steeped in anti-semitism, attacked the Jews was a commonplace.  EVERYONE DID AT THAT TIME.  THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE IT, BUT THAT IS A CULTURAL FACT. I am a Jew and recognize my heritage. 

I also recognize that Wagner's music transcends belief systems.  Like Barenboim and Levine, I recognize the genius that is Wagner, aside from his cultural prejudices.

[daro]

You might pass this inflammatory information onto Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, two contemporary examples of great conductors of Wagner's works -- who happen to be Jewish.   As I am.

Messers Barenboim and Levine are fully aware of all this. In fact, I expect they know even more hideous things about Wagner than even I do.

That Wagner, a product of the 19th century, one steeped in anti-semitism, attacked the Jews was a commonplace.  EVERYONE DID AT THAT TIME.

Yes, pretty much everybody back in the day was anti-semitic, with the possible exception of some of the Jews themselves. But there's a difference between deliberately reinforcing these belief structures upon the masses from a position of power and influence, and merely sitting around like the average person, grumbling about the Jews from his pigsty.

I also recognize that Wagner's music transcends belief systems.  Like Barenboim and Levine, I recognize the genius that is Wagner, aside from his cultural prejudices.

Well, why shouldn't someone love Wagner's music? I do, too. He was clearly among the greatest of the transcendental musical geniuses, IMHO, and I say that as a Jew, BTW.

[werq34ac]

Okay, I will admit I didn't read much into it. Thank you general disarray for enlightenment and daro for even further enlightenment.

As for what I said about Chopin, I don't exactly recall where I heard Chopin was a jerk, since most of my reading of him talks about how he didn't like the concert stage and felt his personality was better fitted to the salon. Also mentioned how he taught, taking much joy in his student's progress. Although I distinctly remember a teacher telling me that Chopin WAS a bit arrogant.

[j_menz]

I suspect a great deal of our favourite music would have to be ditched if we were required to like not only the music, but the lives, personalities and beliefs of the composer.

[piano_vs_science]

who's feinberg???

[j_menz]

who's feinberg???

Ouch!! 

Read up on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil_Feinberg

Actually, I've just ordered some of Feinberg's music. In short order, I'll have solved the whole problem. You'll be able to listen to both me and Feinberg at the same time. 

[ajspiano]

Ouch!! 

Read up on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil_Feinberg

Actually, I've just ordered some of Feinberg's music. In short order, I'll have solved the whole problem. You'll be able to listen to both me and Feinberg at the same time. 

If you look up that woman in the "psychic" thread you may be able to get her to channel feinberg for a live show too.