James Tobin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Ramon Khalona:
>
>>to say that Rattle is "without question superior"
>>can only be justified as a case of acute anglophilia.
>
>Please let's not do this here.  This is a non-musical judgment attacking
>another judgment as non-musical.  Surely there might be some musical basis
>for the original pronouncement.

The original judgement was simply an opinion, as was mine.  But if you
sample PROFESSIONAL musicians, there is no way Rattle comes ahead of
Barenboim.  Not at all.  (And I must once again say that I am on the
record as being a Barenboim detractor).

That Rattle's reputation is inflated, is quite apparent to those in the
know, and I might add, is just one more example of the sorry prevail of
market value over artistic value.  Take it as an opinion, believed to be a
fact (for the reasons stated previously).

Tony Duggan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>You see, there we go again.  It seems you cannot praise Rattle and be
>British without having your motives questioned and it's getting very
>tiresome indeed.  Conceive of the possibility that Canning actually
>believes what he says for sound musical reasons and is expressing an
>opinion to which he is as entitled as anyone.

Sorry Tony, but there is a matter of principle at heart here.  There is
nothing wrong with saying "In my opinion Rattle is superior to everyone
else" [let alone Barenboim].  The problem is for an informed journalist or
writer (and I assume Canning is one) to say that "without question" such is
the case.  You know and I know such a global value judgment is simply not
true.  Certainly not in this case.

Ramon Khalona
Carlsbad, California