Renato Vinicius wrote:

>1- When Bob Draper says "The listener starts salivating in anticipation of
>a performance by Karajan" he is agreeing that Karajan uses to have a very
>good performance, or - obviously - they would not salivate (since it would
>be not the expectative).

I am saying that, because they have heard good performances by Karajan
(for example) before on certain repertoire, then the listener expects
that a good performance will come this time.  That in turn clouds their
judgement.  Their ears will not be so alert to any potential flaws.  When,
however, the listener listens to a piece by an unknown ensemble they have
low expectations because the ensemble is unknown to them.  Hence, they
are alert listening for potential flaws in the performance.

>2- And more: he says people judge by the name (not by the performance),
>but he forgets that, if some "salivates" is because already judged the
>performance many and many times before become a "salivator", since the
>"Pavlov Effect", as anyone knows, needs the continuous repetition of the
>same experience-feeling.

In Pavlov's dogs a bell rings each time the dogs are fed.  The dogs
salivate in anticipation of the meal.  After a number of trials they
salivate when the bell is rung in the absence of food.  This is 'classical
conditioning'.  Which is exactly what I am getting at in music terms

However, an exact parallel situation need not exist.  Suppose that every
time one hears a big name (any big name) perform something and it is good
and others (reviewers) agree.  Then, eventually it is reasonable to assume
that one will expect a big name to deliver a good performance always.
Surely this will cloud ones judgement .  One will start to react to the
name alone whatever the name is.  (Hence name=bell.)

>3- When he choose HvKarajan, he is implicitly saying he thinks HvK is
>great.  Ergo, he is fighting against something that he ownself agrees...

I have already said that I think Karajan is a great conductor and that
I like a lot of what he did.  However, I am certainly not contradicting
myself here.  Just because I have that opinion of him it does not mean that
the next recording of his I hear will not be duff.  I of course will expect
it to be good and that will cloud my judgement.  That is the thrust of the
argument.  No one is flawless 100% of the time.

>4- Any way, I agree with his point of view (but not with his politeness).

What do you mean by this? Do you have an agenda that I am not aware of?
I see nothing impolite in what I said.  Please focus on the facts and
remember that Karajan is just an example.

I am glad that you agree with me!

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]