Ed's group vs. RMO

On Jul 13, 12:22?am, "REG" <Richer....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I think that you can find these references in work of Herbert
> Klein and Shaw, for example, though Shaw was no slave to the past alone.It's
> fairly consistent in the reviewing literature, but I don't think the issue
> is whether people sing better - Shaw famously said thtat 'we' sing better
> than our grandparents, and in certain technical respects (eg intonation) he
> was probably right.
>
> The issue is whether one 'knows' those singers and their standards of
> execution, and what they brought interpretively to roles, or whether one
> doesn't. Again, I think it's not just about singing, but conducting and
> dance and every other performing art - obviously only the people active at
> the time can do it, but the question is whether the sophisticated audience,
> the critics (for what they are worth) and the larger community of artists
> has a sense of the perspective. Too much singing today isn't much more
> lasting that yesterday's newspaper, though it's hyped differently. I know of
> almost no one who knows older singers or conductors or dancers or actors
> (live or through film) who doesn't feel that that perspective is important
> and the standards, where they existed, valuable.
>
> I frankly think that those who shortchange it either aren't curious, don't
> know how to listen, or just don't know much at all, and try to make a virtue
> out of a necessity. Obviously someone like you knows the history of recorded
> performances and can still listen with enthusiasm to younger artists. I
> think that most of the so-called opera queens have the same ability,
> although they are not often as good writers, or as well trained musically or
> otherwise. Again, I think it's a very small minority - the "Sarahs" and a
> couple of others, who feel that they need to create a straw man to protect
> their own position.
>
> My view, at least.
>
> <alanwatkin....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184265594.891815.256710@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 7:18?pm, Count of Warwick <raff_martin....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> > It's the same half dozen old opera queens writing the same ol', same
> >> > ol'. As someone suggested here, how many times can you post about a
> >> > Zinka-Richard-Warren Forza?
>
> >> ==========
> >> If the younger members want to hear the likes of the above, then the
> >> video sharing sites are a treasure trove. There are so many singes
> >> whose names I heard of when I was growing up but had no chance of
> >> seeing or hearing live, it is a goldmine.
>
> >> But we are here, decades after Warren/Milanov/Tucker stopped singing.
> >> We have to support the present singers. There may be a lack of truly
> >> great dramatic singers, but there is a wealth of bel canto and other
> >> lirico-spinto performers. The heavy rep singers will return; it is
> >> cyclical. Some may even be reading this thread. It is unfair to say
> >> to them that "they cannot compare to the greats of the past" and
> >> "should listen to those who had gone before"...not to mention
> >> patronisingly offensive, as they are giving their all.
>
> > I would like to add to that I am quite certain there are outstanding
> > singers/interpreters/conductors/musicians all over the world - the
> > fact that we do not always know of them or that they are not
> > necessarily part of the recording industry or the "big" houses does
> > not mean that their talent is any the less.
>
> > The important choral singing and cameo parts in Britten's Death in
> >Venice(which I reported on from the Aldeburgh Festival) was
> > brilliantly done and I doubt any of them were older than their mid
> > 20s.
>
> > Ditto for the orchestra who were flawless in what is a quite tricky
> > score. It was absolutely thrilling. I happen to think that music
> > (including opera) is very much alive and well.
>
> > I appreciate such of the great singers of the past that I know but
> > they are not here to do it today. The thing that interests me is
> > whether some in the audiences of the 30s and 40s for example thought:
> > "Yes, it's good but it's not as good as X in 1896. Now THAT was a
> > great performance."
>
> > I wonder?
>
> > Kind regards,
> > Alan M. Watkins- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope, it's a lot simpler than all that. I think I know a great
performance on the night against one that isn't having taken part many
times in both.

ANY performing artist, whatever genre, will know that.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

On Jul 14, 12:18 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin... DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:22?am, "REG" <Richer... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, I think that you can find these references in work of Herbert
> > Klein and Shaw, for example, though Shaw was no slave to the past alone.It's
> > fairly consistent in the reviewing literature, but I don't think the issue
> > is whether people sing better - Shaw famously said thtat 'we' sing better
> > than our grandparents, and in certain technical respects (eg intonation) he
> > was probably right.
>
> > The issue is whether one 'knows' those singers and their standards of
> > execution, and what they brought interpretively to roles, or whether one
> > doesn't. Again, I think it's not just about singing, but conducting and
> > dance and every other performing art - obviously only the people active at
> > the time can do it, but the question is whether the sophisticated audience,
> > the critics (for what they are worth) and the larger community of artists
> > has a sense of the perspective. Too much singing today isn't much more
> > lasting that yesterday's newspaper, though it's hyped differently. I know of
> > almost no one who knows older singers or conductors or dancers or actors
> > (live or through film) who doesn't feel that that perspective is important
> > and the standards, where they existed, valuable.
>
> > I frankly think that those who shortchange it either aren't curious, don't
> > know how to listen, or just don't know much at all, and try to make a virtue
> > out of a necessity. Obviously someone like you knows the history of recorded
> > performances and can still listen with enthusiasm to younger artists. I
> > think that most of the so-called opera queens have the same ability,
> > although they are not often as good writers, or as well trained musically or
> > otherwise. Again, I think it's a very small minority - the "Sarahs" and a
> > couple of others, who feel that they need to create a straw man to protect
> > their own position.
>
> > My view, at least.
>
> > <alanwatkin... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1184265594.891815.256710@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 12, 7:18?pm, Count of Warwick <raff_martin... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >> > It's the same half dozen old opera queens writing the same ol', same
> > >> > ol'. As someone suggested here, how many times can you post about a
> > >> > Zinka-Richard-Warren Forza?
>
> > >> ==========
> > >> If the younger members want to hear the likes of the above, then the
> > >> video sharing sites are a treasure trove. There are so many singes
> > >> whose names I heard of when I was growing up but had no chance of
> > >> seeing or hearing live, it is a goldmine.
>
> > >> But we are here, decades after Warren/Milanov/Tucker stopped singing.
> > >> We have to support the present singers. There may be a lack of truly
> > >> great dramatic singers, but there is a wealth of bel canto and other
> > >> lirico-spinto performers. The heavy rep singers will return; it is
> > >> cyclical. Some may even be reading this thread. It is unfair to say
> > >> to them that "they cannot compare to the greats of the past" and
> > >> "should listen to those who had gone before"...not to mention
> > >> patronisingly offensive, as they are giving their all.
>
> > > I would like to add to that I am quite certain there are outstanding
> > > singers/interpreters/conductors/musicians all over the world - the
> > > fact that we do not always know of them or that they are not
> > > necessarily part of the recording industry or the "big" houses does
> > > not mean that their talent is any the less.
>
> > > The important choral singing and cameo parts in Britten's Death in
> > >Venice(which I reported on from the Aldeburgh Festival) was
> > > brilliantly done and I doubt any of them were older than their mid
> > > 20s.
>
> > > Ditto for the orchestra who were flawless in what is a quite tricky
> > > score. It was absolutely thrilling. I happen to think that music
> > > (including opera) is very much alive and well.
>
> > > I appreciate such of the great singers of the past that I know but
> > > they are not here to do it today. The thing that interests me is
> > > whether some in the audiences of the 30s and 40s for example thought:
> > > "Yes, it's good but it's not as good as X in 1896. Now THAT was a
> > > great performance."
>
> > > I wonder?
>
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alan M. Watkins- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nope, it's a lot simpler than all that. I think I know a great
> performance on the night against one that isn't having taken part many
> times in both.

Just give us a list of the performances you have taken part in...
orchestras, dates, conductors, and so on. Nobody in Prague knows you,
nobody.


> ANY performing artist, whatever genre, will know that.

And you are a performing artist where? With what orchestra? Under
which conductors? Nobody in Prague has heard of you.

Best,

mrt