Post by Roman TurovskyI am not here to piss a pisser. I am informing this list about I piece of
music that I consider beautiful, and your "clout" won't influence people who
have a mind of their own. Your trashing of this piece is a good thing.
It is not the piece itself I am trashing. The first thing I said about
it was that it was a nice pastiche. What I am trashing, and will
continue to do so, is the phoney pretense under which it was presented
to this group, as if it belongs to a fake manuscript by a non-existent
composer named Antonio da Costa (which is Portuguese for Joe Blow,
Fred Blogue or Vasili Tiutkin). As for the actual quality of the
piece, that is a matter of personal taste. If you are awestruck by
it, which is your right to be awestruck, that's your problem. I am
not. I have seen hundreds of similar pieces in e minor, and I have
even published some such. See Ivanov-Kramskoi's Sad Mood in Vol. VII
of the Russian Collection. This e minor thing has become such a corny
cliche in guitar music, that even an occasional dissonance is not
going remedy. If you were awestruck by this sophomoric exercise, you
ought to be down right paralyzed with fear when you finally discover
the e minor masterpieces by Sor, Giuliani, Aguado, Carulli, not to
mention Villa-Lobos.
Post by Roman TurovskyPost by Roman TurovskyPost by Matanya OpheeSince you admitted above that you know NOTHING on the subject, the
subject being the repertoire of the guitar, you are not in position to
make a judgement on the musical sensitivity of any guitarist,
Are you one? No one thinks so.
Yes, my friend. I am one, no matter who thinks what. Obviously, you
have no idea who reads this list and what every single one of them
thinks. Actually, there are some people on this list who have heard me
play the guitar. Quite recently. While I may not be a virtuoso player,
but the more than 150 editions of guitar music I prepared for
publication, containing hundreds of pieces of guitar music, are
testimony enough as to my qualifications as a guitarist. By your own
testimony, you have none. You can't even tell the difference between a
classical guitar and a baroque guitar.
I certainly can. Even with my limited familiarity with post-1750 repertoire.
And even if I used a part of PG's unedited description of the piece to a
misleading result: You wouldn't argue that there were no 6 course guitars
pre-1750, would you?
Of course I would. The very first tutor for the guitar in pitch
notation, by one Don***, is datable to 1758. It is for the five course
guitar. But the _text_ inside speaks about single strung,
double-strung, and triple strung guitars in Spain with as many as 9
courses. And of course, no matter the nomenclature, six-course fretted
plucked instruments with a figure 8 body have existed all over Europe
from at least a couple of centuries _before_ 1750. Sometimes they were
called vihuelas, sometimes they were called vandolas, sometimes they
were called cetras. With different tunings, they all amounted to the
same damn thing as a 12-string guitar.
Post by Roman TurovskyPost by Roman TurovskyPost by Matanya Opheeparticularly some one like myself who have been providing guitarists,
and some lutenists too, with their repertoire for the last 25 years.
Providing? Use the dictionary.
Damn right. Providing, making available, discovering, bringing out.
Many of the things I published are now part and parcel of the general
repertoire of the guitar. Many of the composers I brought out of
obscurity, de Fossa, Lhoyer, Regondi, Shand, Bobrowicz, Schulz,
Sychra,
Blessed are the lands that bore these giants.
Now, if you are really interested in the guitar's repertoire, you can
familiarize yourself with the music of these giants. But that will be
tough. You will have to actually _buy_ the music, and to make things
worse for you, you will have to buy _my_ editions of it. I'll be happy
to take your money, directly or indirectly...:-)
Post by Roman Turovskyare now being performed and recorded by the greatest
guitarists of our time, and by thousands of amateurs and countless
numbers of students. I am not alone on this field. There are others
who are just as active as myself, and there is no need for me to
mention their names, since everybody here in this NG knows who they
are. You don't. And you know why? because you are just a hapless
bumbler who hasn't a clue about music.
None at all. You got that right.....
You make a good show among
lutenists,
Not only lutenists. Actually the most fan-mail I get comes from composers.
And a couple of sizeable CG figures. Some of them are listed [and quoted
verbatim] in
http://polyhymnion.org/swv/comments.html
See for yourselves, MO is included there too.
Which only proves the point that you have been very successful in
snaring a bunch of innocents, and some people who should have known
better than to give you these quotables.
Post by Roman Turovskysome of whom think that you are really something special,
but with friends like them, you don't need enemies.
Why not? You are a perfect enemy. You are sufficiently intelligent, but not
too deep, decently informed, but rather uncultured, and extremely
uncreative. Your bile lends just enough weight to the object of your
invective. Inconsequential things do not merit bile.
Thank you for confirming my judgement of this piece.
Post by Roman TurovskyIn a word, you are
nothing more than a khalturshchik. Now I really need a dictionary to
be able to explain to the good folks around here who you are...
The word means "someone with (or a seeker of) an easy, undemanding job; a
slacker"
That's one meaning. In actual parlance it means one who creates a
khaltura, i.e., a piece of non-professional crap.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html