John Dalmas connipts:

>Steven Schwartz wrote:
>
>>Bach tells me different things than Mozart and Chopin, different things
>>than from either.
>
>One can only wonder what Bach tells Mr.Schwartz, when in the same breath
>he says "I've liked Bach for harmonica ensemble." Is it that Bach tells Mr.
>Schwartz that whatever Bach wrote is above criticism, and that therefore
>listening to Bach must be the Rosetta Stone against which all other
>composers and their performers, including Chopin and Mozart and their
>performers, must be translated?

My, oh my.  How did you ever get that? Did I push the wrong button? I'm
just saying that I've liked unlikely things, that somehow even in a loopy
arrangement of (probably) a very carefully-chosen work, the arrangement
avoided travesty.

>I am amazed at the arrogance of certain critics I have encountered on
>this list, whom I would categorize not as "record collectors" but as
>"record PURCHASERS," whose "droit de seigneur" seems to be based on the
>number of recordings they have recently added to their collections, rather
>than the perceptivity and discrimination in matters of taste and judgment
>that should be the natural consequence of a lifetime of listening to music
>seriously.

I admit it.  My standards are low.  I also don't think them universally
applicable.

>If one cannot recognize in Dinu Lipatti's playing, in the words of
>one noted critic, "the lyricism, grace, elegance and verve, the unfailing
>taste and feeling for continuity in phrase and large structure, in addition
>to the precision of execution and tonal beauty," then we might be better
>served here in discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head
>of a pin.

I'll go stand in the corner now.

Steve Schwartz