Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/18 5:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2018 9:21 PM, John H wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:32:59 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 6:22:53 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 5:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 5:07 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 4:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 4:34 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 2:16 PM, wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:21:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 12:13 PM, wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:57:39 -0500, John H wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:37:48 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:58:39 -0500, John H wrote: Never enjoyed watching a performance more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZDiaRZy0Ak === Nice.Â* I understand that there are some people who can listen to that without thinking of Bo Derek.Â*Â* :-) --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Yup, I'se one. I didn't know Bo Derek was in a movie named 'Bolero' until just now. I'm wondering where I was in 1984 when that came out. (I looked it up on You Tube.) Hell, I was right here working at the Army Personnel Center. Too damn busy to go to the movies, I reckon. The "Bolaro" reference was originally from the movie "10". Ravel was never on my favorites list, and he dropped even lower for orchestrating and turning Modest Mussorgsky's lovely Pictures at an Exhibition into a bombastic Herring piece.Â* === Here's some Ravel that may be subtle enough for your delicate sensibilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNlYMvFA5U I'm familiar with Ravel's compositions. As far as I know, there is no requirement that I like or prefer the music of all composers of serious music, or even all the compositions of composers I do prefer. One of the more bizarre peculiarities of this newsgroup is the "demand" for group think. Must be all the military experience here, eh? No one demanded that you like that version.Â* In fact, you took a shot at John because he did like it, and you didn't.Â* Your own version of demanding group think.Â* It was normal, and expected, that you be an asshole about it, though.Â* Business as usual for you. So true.Â* Harry has been like that for decades.Â* He has little respect for what other people like or enjoy unless it happens to shared by him, which is very rare. Most mentally stable people understand and accept that people have different tastes and likes. I stated I didn't like it. I don't give a **** whether you like it or not. I don't like Herring's taste for overdone, overly bombastic music. Can you respect the fact that some find it enjoyable?Â*Â* Nope.Â* You can't, because *you* don't like it.Â* That's the personality quirk that is so consistent in you over the past 20 years. Once again, I don't give a **** whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not. I don't dislike it because Herring likes it. "I don't like Herring's taste for overdone, overly bombastic music." Yeah, John has nothing to do with it. He's having a hard time keeping his own bull**** straight. Take note of what he said: "I don't like Herring's taste for overdone, overly bombastic music." He claims to be a master at using words, yet .. Is it John's *taste* in music that Harry doesn't like or is it "overly bombastic music" that he doesn't like? Two different things. Oh, joy... |
#52
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one. But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh? If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Or maybe you just don't know. That's ok too. Admitting you don't know is the first step towards recovery. |
#53
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/18 6:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one.Â* But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh?Â* If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Nope. In this case, it was written on a piano and published, but it was written *for* an orchestra. |
#54
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/2018 7:44 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/17/18 6:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one.Â* But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh?Â* If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Nope. In this case, it was written on a piano and published, but it was written *for* an orchestra. Guess you missed "published *for* piano", huh? I'll give you credit for consistency. Your progressive-liberal thought process leaves you in a constant state of denial. |
#55
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/18 7:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2018 7:44 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 6:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one.Â* But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh?Â* If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Nope. In this case, it was written on a piano and published, but it was written *for* an orchestra. Guess you missed "published *for* piano",Â* huh? I'll give you credit for consistency.Â* Your progressive-liberal thought process leaves you in a constant state of denial. This seems simple enough: The Story Of Ravel's BolĂ©ro Before he left for a triumphant tour of North America in January 1928, Maurice Ravel had agreed to write a Spanish-flavoured ballet score for his friend, the Russian dancer and actress Ida Rubinstein (1885-1960). The idea was to create an orchestral transcription of Albeniz’s piano suite Iberia. But on his return Ravel discovered that the orchestration rights had been granted to the Spanish conductor Enrique ArbĂłs. Although ArbĂłs generously gave up these rights, Ravel abandoned the idea and set about preparing an original score. Ravel had long toyed with the idea of building a composition from a single theme which would grow simply through harmonic and instrumental ingenuity. BolĂ©ro’s famous theme came to him on holiday in Saint-Jean-de-Luz. He was about to go for a swim when he called a friend over to the piano and, playing the melody with one finger, asked: “Don’t you think that has an insistent quality? I’m going to try to repeat it a number of times without any development, gradually increasing the orchestra as best I can.” He began work in July. By Ravel’s standards the piece was completed quickly, in five months – it had to be ready for Rubinstein to choreograph. “Once the idea of using only one theme was discovered,” he asserted, “any conservatory student could have done as well.” The relentless snare-drum underpins the whole of the 15-minute work as Ravel inexorably builds on the simple tune until, with a daring modulation from C major to E major, he finally releases the pent-up tension with a burst of fireworks. BolĂ©ro was given its first performance at the Paris OpĂ©ra on November 20, 1928. The premiere was acclaimed by a shouting, stamping, cheering audience in the midst of which a woman was heard screaming: “Au fou, au fou!” (“The madman! The madman!”). When Ravel was told of this, he reportedly replied: “That lady… she understood.” In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I am particularly desirous there should be no misunderstanding about this work. It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving other or more than it actually does.” Yet although Ravel considered BolĂ©ro one of his least important works, it has always been his most popular. https://is.gd/8pNwCq |
#56
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:13:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boléro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano. Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. You seem to forget that Krause is omniscient. Therefore he knows what the composer was thinking while composing. |
#57
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:56:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/17/18 7:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 7:44 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 6:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boléro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one.* But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh?* If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Nope. In this case, it was written on a piano and published, but it was written *for* an orchestra. Guess you missed "published *for* piano",* huh? I'll give you credit for consistency.* Your progressive-liberal thought process leaves you in a constant state of denial. This seems simple enough: The Story Of Ravel's Boléro Before he left for a triumphant tour of North America in January 1928, Maurice Ravel had agreed to write a Spanish-flavoured ballet score for his friend, the Russian dancer and actress Ida Rubinstein (1885-1960). The idea was to create an orchestral transcription of Albeniz’s piano suite Iberia. But on his return Ravel discovered that the orchestration rights had been granted to the Spanish conductor Enrique Arbós. Although Arbós generously gave up these rights, Ravel abandoned the idea and set about preparing an original score. Ravel had long toyed with the idea of building a composition from a single theme which would grow simply through harmonic and instrumental ingenuity. Boléro’s famous theme came to him on holiday in Saint-Jean-de-Luz. He was about to go for a swim when he called a friend over to the piano and, playing the melody with one finger, asked: “Don’t you think that has an insistent quality? I’m going to try to repeat it a number of times without any development, gradually increasing the orchestra as best I can.” He began work in July. By Ravel’s standards the piece was completed quickly, in five months – it had to be ready for Rubinstein to choreograph. “Once the idea of using only one theme was discovered,” he asserted, “any conservatory student could have done as well.” The relentless snare-drum underpins the whole of the 15-minute work as Ravel inexorably builds on the simple tune until, with a daring modulation from C major to E major, he finally releases the pent-up tension with a burst of fireworks. Boléro was given its first performance at the Paris Opéra on November 20, 1928. The premiere was acclaimed by a shouting, stamping, cheering audience in the midst of which a woman was heard screaming: “Au fou, au fou!” (“The madman! The madman!”). When Ravel was told of this, he reportedly replied: “That lady… she understood.” In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I am particularly desirous there should be no misunderstanding about this work. It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving other or more than it actually does.” Yet although Ravel considered Boléro one of his least important works, it has always been his most popular. https://is.gd/8pNwCq Gosh, all that research for a piece of music you don't like. |
#58
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
On 1/17/2018 8:12 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:56:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 7:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 7:44 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 6:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2018 6:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Old one.Â* But, let's get back to the subject at hand, huh?Â* If a musical score is *published" for piano, wasn't it written for piano? Nope. In this case, it was written on a piano and published, but it was written *for* an orchestra. Guess you missed "published *for* piano",Â* huh? I'll give you credit for consistency.Â* Your progressive-liberal thought process leaves you in a constant state of denial. This seems simple enough: The Story Of Ravel's BolĂ©ro Before he left for a triumphant tour of North America in January 1928, Maurice Ravel had agreed to write a Spanish-flavoured ballet score for his friend, the Russian dancer and actress Ida Rubinstein (1885-1960). The idea was to create an orchestral transcription of Albeniz’s piano suite Iberia. But on his return Ravel discovered that the orchestration rights had been granted to the Spanish conductor Enrique ArbĂłs. Although ArbĂłs generously gave up these rights, Ravel abandoned the idea and set about preparing an original score. Ravel had long toyed with the idea of building a composition from a single theme which would grow simply through harmonic and instrumental ingenuity. BolĂ©ro’s famous theme came to him on holiday in Saint-Jean-de-Luz. He was about to go for a swim when he called a friend over to the piano and, playing the melody with one finger, asked: “Don’t you think that has an insistent quality? I’m going to try to repeat it a number of times without any development, gradually increasing the orchestra as best I can.” He began work in July. By Ravel’s standards the piece was completed quickly, in five months – it had to be ready for Rubinstein to choreograph. “Once the idea of using only one theme was discovered,” he asserted, “any conservatory student could have done as well.” The relentless snare-drum underpins the whole of the 15-minute work as Ravel inexorably builds on the simple tune until, with a daring modulation from C major to E major, he finally releases the pent-up tension with a burst of fireworks. BolĂ©ro was given its first performance at the Paris OpĂ©ra on November 20, 1928. The premiere was acclaimed by a shouting, stamping, cheering audience in the midst of which a woman was heard screaming: “Au fou, au fou!” (“The madman! The madman!”). When Ravel was told of this, he reportedly replied: “That lady… she understood.” In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I am particularly desirous there should be no misunderstanding about this work. It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving other or more than it actually does.” Yet although Ravel considered BolĂ©ro one of his least important works, it has always been his most popular. https://is.gd/8pNwCq Gosh, all that research for a piece of music you don't like. That or is it because others happen to like it? |
#59
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boléro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano. Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Was Ravel a Republican? |
#60
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just Beautiful!
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/17/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote: 4:05 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's a big difference there. I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion, turned it into something it was never meant to be. Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM .... Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BolĂ©ro “ The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929. Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for two pianos, published in 1930. The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed] for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...” According to this, Piano it was Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated dance piece. If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for piano.Â* Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket. Uh-huh. Your language skills remind me of a funny engineering student I knew in college. "Before I enrolled in engineering school," he would say, "I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one." I don't know if that was original with him, though. Difference between Engineers and journalism students is Engineers have to produce true, readable instructions. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Beautiful day! | General | |||
Another beautiful day on the Bay | General | |||
Beautiful day on the Bay! | General | |||
Beautiful day on the Bay! | General | |||
Beautiful Bay Day! | General |