# Classical music's biggest charlatan



## Andreas

Who do you consider the biggest fraud in the history of classical music? I've heard this about a number of people: Schoenberg, Celibidache, Karajan, Horowitz, Stokowski, Glass, Pärt. I wonder, who do you think fooled the classical music public the most?


----------



## ahammel

I strongly suspect that this won't be an especially enlightening thread.


----------



## Flamme

Today is one of ''those'' days:lol:


----------



## TurnaboutVox

ahammel said:


> I strongly suspect that this won't be an especially enlightening thread.


No, but I could start with someone...

Rosemary Isabel Brown (1916 - 2001) was an English composer, pianist and spirit medium who claimed that dead composers dictated new musical works to her. I remember the fuss made about her in the mid-70's. She certainly fooled some people, though maybe herself too as she seemed genuinely to believe that dead composers dictated works to her. Now _there_ was someone who wanted to 'be' Beethoven, or rather, Liszt!

Here's her obituary:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/dec/11/guardianobituaries


----------



## KenOC

Obviously Sebastian Bach. He had this trick of being able to play several tunes at the same time and developed it into some kind of major industry. Everybody still goes "Ooh! Ah!" like this is any better than watching a well-trained performing seal!

Don't you agree? :devil:


----------



## ahammel

TurnaboutVox said:


> No, but I could start with someone...
> 
> Rosemary Isabel Brown (1916 - 2001) was an English composer, pianist and spirit medium who claimed that dead composers dictated new musical works to her.


Ah yes, I remember that story.

As it turns out, composers tend to write their best works before they're dead.


----------



## Mahlerian

I think Ludovico Einaudi is a charlatan. I don't believe that anyone could have a full musical training and actually believe that that sort of music is worth writing.

Schoenberg considered Koussevitsky a charlatan, because he couldn't read scores and apparently had assistants who played the piano reduction of a new work multiple times until he could conduct it himself.


----------



## PetrB

I'll nominate Michael Nyman. For me, to say anything more about his music or career is bad time thrown on to first having spent good time listening to any of it. The mantle of "The Emperor's New Clothes" is often handed to Philip Glass or another, but I think Nyman is the most "Emperor's New Clothes" of them all.



Mahlerian said:


> I think Ludovico Einaudi is a charlatan. I don't believe that anyone could have a full musical training and actually believe that that sort of music is worth writing.
> 
> Schoenberg considered Koussevitsky a charlatan, because he couldn't read scores and apparently had assistants who played the piano reduction of a new work multiple times until he could conduct it himself.


...........Hot dish on Koussevitzky!

Does _anyone_ seriously consider Ludovico Einaudi to be a 'classical composer?'

I agree in that I think he completely and most cynically abandoned his musical past (If you got to train with Berio, it was not on the basis of a submission of a folio filled with well-crafted new-age dribbles.) Almost certainly Einaudi gave up on his original interest and intent, as in, 
"I'm going to chuck it all in, write what comes really easy, and make a ton of money." 
But "classical?" No more than George Winston is classical, and at least Winston is utterly sincere.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> But "classical?" No more than George Winston is classical, and at least Winston is utterly sincere.


Yeah, I'd file it under New Age myself, and I respect Winston/Vangelis/New Age composer #5 all the more for being sincere, despite not wanting to listen to any of it.


----------



## PetrB

If not for their valid opinion, but for the deathly dull repetitiveness of it.... 

Can we agree that whomever here names John Cage gets directly hauled out into the courtyard and summarily executed without any sort of due process involved?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Obviously Sebastian Bach. He had this trick of being able to play several tunes at the same time and developed it into some kind of major industry. Everybody still goes "Ooh! Ah!" like this is any better than watching a well-trained performing seal!
> 
> Don't you agree?


Its twue! its twue! 
..._what a one-trick pony that guy was!_


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> ...........Hot dish on Koussevitzky!


In part he wrote that because Koussevitsky preferred to program the music of Stravinsky, Bartok, and so forth in lieu of his own, but it was not simply that, because he said while he despised Bruno Walter (whose tastes were far more conservative than Koussevitsky's) as a person he thought very highly of him as a conductor.


----------



## Bulldog

I'll go with the Joyce Hatto scandal.


----------



## PetrB

Bulldog said:


> I'll go with the Joyce Hatto scandal.


About performance(s), not composers.

But surely that was one genuine fraud, truly spectacular and with a poignant underbelly as to motivation.

For any who wish to know a little more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> In part he wrote that because Koussevitsky preferred to program the music of Stravinsky, Bartok, and so forth in lieu of his own, but it was not simply that, because he said while he despised Bruno Walter (whose tastes were far more conservative than Koussevitsky's) as a person he thought very highly of him as a conductor.


Poor Schoenberg, with that very human flaw often found in the self-taught and self made: finding insult and betrayal (those most often imagined where there were none), then getting inflamed and holding a grudge about it -- and in that he was often adamantly tenacious.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> For any who wish to know a little more
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto


Pretty good movie about this made last year -- Loving Miss Hatto (2012).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2220204/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


----------



## samurai

Andreas said:


> Who do you consider the biggest fraud in the history of classical music? I've heard this about a number of people: Schoenberg, Celibidache, Karajan, Horowitz, Stokowski, Glass, Pärt. I wonder, who do you think fooled the classical music public the most?



What is your definition of "*fooled", *then?


----------



## Sudonim

samurai said:


> What is your definition of "*fooled", *then?


Yes, we'd better clarify early on that "charlatan" does *not* equal "composer whose music you don't like." At least that's how I see the intention here. Of those mentioned in the OP, I'd say none were "charlatans." Controversial and/or idiosyncratic, yes, but that doesn't make one a charlatan. Given the level at which one must perform to rise to any level of prominence in classical music (or jazz, for that matter), I'd guess that there are very few actual "charlatans" to be found.


----------



## Vaneyes

Joyce Hatto/William Barrington-Coupe CD plague.

Tristan Foison's Desenclos Messe de Requiem rip-off.

Slatkin & Glennie wildly-publicised affair.


----------



## lupinix

antonio diabelli


----------



## ahammel

lupinix said:


> antonio diabelli


He of the variations?

Why? Why did he do?


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kreisler? "Some of Kreisler's compositions were pastiches in an ostensible style of other composers, originally ascribed to earlier composers such as Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini, and Antonio Vivaldi. Then, in 1935, Kreisler revealed that he actually wrote the pieces. When critics complained, Kreisler replied that they had already deemed the compositions worthy: 'The name changes, the value remains,' he said." (Wiki)


----------



## lupinix

ahammel said:


> He of the variations?
> 
> Why? Why did he do?


he published many pieces under his own name which later appeared to be from others, things like that
at least, so I have learned


----------



## KenOC

lupinix said:


> he published many pieces under his own name which later appeared to be from others, things like that
> at least, so I have learned


No mention of this that I can find, nor have I ever heard of it. Are there any sources for it?

BTW "The famous 'Albinoni Adagio in G minor' for violin, strings and organ, the subject of many modern recordings, is now thought to be a musical hoax composed by Remo Giazotto..." (Wiki)

Unintentional charlatanry: Brahms's Haydn Variations are not based on a theme by Haydn. Stravinsky's Pulcinella is not based on themes (as he thought) mostly by Pergolesi.


----------



## ahammel

lupinix said:


> he published many pieces under his own name which later appeared to be from others, things like that
> at least, so I have learned


Wiki makes no mention of this (although it does have the interesting factoid that his first career was as a monk). Sure it was him you're thinking of?


----------



## ahammel

It does put me in mind of Franz von Walsegg, who commissioned Mozart's _Requiem_ with the intention of pretending that he had written it.


----------



## dgee

The bel canto composers laughed all the way to the bank with "operas" they vomitted out in weeks - and they're still fooling people all these years later ;-)


----------



## quack

Count Franz von Walsegg, the man who commissioned Mozart's _Requiem_, was known to do this. Commission works from relatively unknown composers and then pass them off has his own compositions.


----------



## lupinix

KenOC said:


> No mention of this that I can find, nor have I ever heard of it. Are there any sources for it?
> 
> BTW "The famous 'Albinoni Adagio in G minor' for violin, strings and organ, the subject of many modern recordings, is now thought to be a musical hoax composed by Remo Giazotto..." (Wiki)
> 
> Unintentional charlatanry: Brahms's Haydn Variations are not based on a theme by Haydn. Stravinsky's Pulcinella is not based on themes (as he thought) mostly by Pergolesi.


yeah I found out also about the adagio =[ no wonder its such a great piece, its a shame because it used to be my favorite baroque work (no idea if it would still be though, I now know a lot more)



ahammel said:


> Wiki makes no mention of this (although it does have the interesting factoid that his first career was as a monk). Sure it was him you're thinking of?


hm maybe I have mixed names up with someone else =$


----------



## dgee

Not necessarily charlatanism but an interesting musical hoax I had never head of before. Read to the end to catch the purpose - it wasn't quite what I thought it was!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Zak


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dgee said:


> The bel canto composers laughed all the way to the bank with "operas" they vomitted out in weeks - and they're still fooling people all these years later ;-)


Dame Joan being the obvious exception to the way ANY bel canto opera is received.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Hmmm... we got this deep into the thread without mentioning "the two Andys?" 
[André Rieu, Andrea Bocelli.]

Though in fairness, it's not exactly that they're charlatans themselves- it's just that they attract a lot of people who've fooled themselves into thinking that they've embraced _high culture_ by listening to their performances.


----------



## elgar's ghost

If you ever have a beer with David Hurwitz and ask him then he'll probably nominate Roger Norrington (or 'this tiresome quack', as I believe he once referred to him).


----------



## Guest

Still waiting for a definition of "fooled."


----------



## Ajayay

Well, Joyce Hatto surely!


----------



## Albert7

I vote the Joyce Hatto scandal as well for this thread. But still...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

dgee- The bel canto composers laughed all the way to the bank with "operas" they vomitted out in weeks - and they're still fooling people all these years later ;-)

Didn't Mozart do the same...?

To say nothing of Bach and his weekly cantatas.

Somehow, I don't feel fooled.


----------



## Albert7

StlukesguildOhio said:


> dgee- The bel canto composers laughed all the way to the bank with "operas" they vomitted out in weeks - and they're still fooling people all these years later ;-)
> 
> Didn't Mozart do the same...?
> 
> To say nothing of Bach and his weekly cantatas.
> 
> Somehow, I don't feel fooled.


Indeed, I agree... to call bel canto composers a fraud is a complete disservice to us in today's world.... do we not complain when our favorite scriptwriters on TV shows do their weekly shows?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That depends upon the show.


Then again... I rarely ever watch TV.


----------



## ptr

Ajayay said:


> Well, Joyce Hatto surely!





Albert7 said:


> I vote the Joyce Hatto scandal as well for this thread. But still...


Should not that read "William Barrington-Coupe", who stage the whole set up? I quit doubt that Ms Hatto was very involved herself!

/ptr


----------



## AnotherSpin

Valentina Lisitsa


----------



## Guest

This was a huge scandal in its day. But that was radio for you:


----------



## merlinus

Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Albert7

merlinus said:


> Ronald Reagan.


I am seriously worried now.


----------



## Weston

AnotherSpin said:


> Valentina Lisitsa


Why would this be? Her collaborations with Hilary Hahn are highly acclaimed from what I've read..


----------



## Albert7

Weston said:


> Why would this be? Her collaborations with Hilary Hahn are highly acclaimed from what I've read..


Some people dislike her due to her politics; others dislike her due to how she has a YouTube channel.

I enjoy her playing.


----------



## Ali Ben Sawali

All music critics, not just Bryce Morrison. But apart from those, close your eyes and dream of the good old days of nazism whilst you conduct the BPO Karajan. Or I really want to be a great composer when I grow up Bernstein.


----------



## Michael Sayers

TurnaboutVox said:


> No, but I could start with someone...
> 
> Rosemary Isabel Brown (1916 - 2001) was an English composer, pianist and spirit medium who claimed that dead composers dictated new musical works to her. I remember the fuss made about her in the mid-70's. She certainly fooled some people, though maybe herself too as she seemed genuinely to believe that dead composers dictated works to her. Now _there_ was someone who wanted to 'be' Beethoven, or rather, Liszt!
> 
> Here's her obituary:
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/dec/11/guardianobituaries


I don't consider Rosemary Brown to be a charlatan. This doesn't imply that I think her claims about her compositional processes are true - I don't have an opinion on that in either direction - but that the sketch-like compositions are of interest. Some of them have ideas that the claimed composers could have improved upon and expanded on to create very nice compositions. For instance, if I had found out elsewhere about the music in the link below and had read that it was a sketch by Liszt which had been discovered and which was for some ideas that would have been made into a third piano Legend, I would buy it:






Mvh,
Michael


----------



## AnotherSpin

Albert7 said:


> I enjoy her playing.


 She plays herself, not music. Music is not anywhere near.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Michael Sayers said:


> I don't consider Rosemary Brown to be a charlatan. This doesn't imply that I think her claims about her compositional processes are true - I don't have an opinion on that in either direction - but that the sketch-like compositions are of interest. Some of them have ideas that the claimed composers could have improved upon and expanded on to create very nice compositions. For instance, if I had found out elsewhere about the music in the link below and had read that it was a sketch by Liszt which had been discovered and which was for some ideas that would have been made into a third piano Legend, I would buy it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mvh,
> Michael


_*Charlatan, n: A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
*_
Regardless of her compositional skill (which I'm not in a position to judge, being a musical layman) she attempted to pass off the works she produced as dictated to her by the spirits of dead composers, rather than the fruits of her own skill and effort.

Unless the universe operates by different rules to those established by scientific research (viz., the impossibility of dead ex-human beings dictating artistic works posthumously to living ones, the non-reversibility of time etc.) then she was, by the above definition, a charlatan.

She may have sincerely believed what she claimed, in which case, I concede, she was merely under an illusion. But many people who have been called charlatans were apparently convinced of the truth of the narrative they told.


----------



## Michael Sayers

TurnaboutVox said:


> _*Charlatan, n: A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
> *_
> Regardless of her compositional skill (which I'm not in a position to judge, being a musical layman) she attempted to pass off the works she produced as dictated to her by the spirits of dead composers, rather than the fruits of her own skill and effort.
> 
> Unless the universe operates by different rules to those established by scientific research (viz., the impossibility of dead ex-human beings dictating artistic works posthumously to living ones, the non-reversibility of time etc.) then she was, by the above definition, a charlatan.
> 
> She may have sincerely believed what she claimed, in which case, I concede, she was merely under an illusion. But many people who have been called charlatans were apparently convinced of the truth of the narrative they told.


A claim that someone is a charlatan is a claim about that person's character. To imply that Rosemary Brown was an "Elmer Gantry" goes further than any evidence can support, in my opinion.

Mvh,
Michael


----------



## Hydrarchos

Sorry to resurrect this ignominious thread, but I rather enjoyed this discussion of musical malpractice since I came across a good example the other day. It seems to me that being a charlatan at the very least requires malevolent deception; in music, that is generally tied with posturing - it is that which in my view does turn Barrington-Coupe into a charlatan, even if there was an altruistic motive too (even if I think that motive was rather exaggerated later).

The reason I bring this up is that I was recently confronted with the "work" of one Pieter Gabry (1715-1770), a Dutch con man of wide interests, who succeeded in getting appointed to memberships of the Académie Royale des Sciences, and the German Societas Regia Scientiarum and Academia Naturae Curiosorum Leopoldina, despite being proven to fiddle his observations. In addition, he published musical works by others as his own, and was found out when a violinist in a quartet recognized "Gabry's" string quartet as the one by Johann Wilms, which he'd played a few days before. 

Modern versions are probably are José Kaplan, whose "Piano Concerto" at least somewhat reworked Shostakovich' Second PC, or Günter Elsholz, who "produced" (the story is still unclear, I believe) a purportedly "lost" symphony from 1825 by Schubert. There was a recording of that one by the Cincinati PhO under Gerhard Samuel, and it's honestly one of my guilty pleasures, straddling the divide between a competent pastiche and P.D.Q Bach.

I was tempted to nominate Celibidache as well, but a lot of that cult can't be blamed on the man himself, even if he hardly helped prevent it.


----------



## johnlewisgrant

KenOC said:


> Obviously Sebastian Bach. He had this trick of being able to play several tunes at the same time and developed it into some kind of major industry. Everybody still goes "Ooh! Ah!" like this is any better than watching a well-trained performing seal!
> 
> Don't you agree? :devil:


All those Baroque composers were mountebanks, stealing ideas from one another without remorse.


----------



## Guest

Mamoru Samuragochi


----------



## Merl

Definitely Alfred Scholtz, for collecting, bootlegging, stealing (and conducting) many of those budget classical recordings and passing them off under aliases or using better-known conductors' names or the names of his mentors (Eg. Swarovsky). We still don't know who recorded or appeared on nearly half of those recordings that still turn up on budget labels today. No-one knows whether recordings made under the pseudonyms Albert Lizzio, Henry Adolph, Phillipe Duvier, Alexander von Pitamic, George Randolph Warren, Hymisher Greenburg or Cesare Cantieri were him or scratch recordings made / bought / stolen from elsewhere or were major label cast-offs (doubtful) or were composed of Eastern Block scratch orchestras or what. Some of those recordings have been issued many times over with the same recording often being attributed to several conductors. Even poor Nanut and Swarovsky's names were dragged into it and they had nowt to do with the utter charlatan.


----------



## Dimace

Andreas said:


> Who do you consider the biggest fraud in the history of classical music? I've heard this about a number of people: Schoenberg,* Celibidache, Karajan, Horowitz, Stokowski,* Glass, Pärt. I wonder, who do you think fooled the classical music public the most?


My fellow German made some jokes here... Especially this one with Sergiu is the best I ever red in a serious forum, so hilarious I can't stop laughing etc., etc...

The only charlatan I know and I really like him too much, is Pavel Haas's Charlatan. A very nice opera, with violent story and historical background.


----------



## Haydn70

John Cage. Interesting coincidence that "charlatan" is the exact term that a very good friend of mine (a very fine composer) and I used in a discussion about Cage that we had earlier today.


----------



## KenOC

"Italians are all charlatans." --Mozart in a letter to his father


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> "Italians are all charlatans." --Mozart in a letter to his father


As someone of 100% Italian descent I resemble that remark!


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> As someone of 100% Italian descent I resemble that remark!


I have Mozart's e-mail if you want to file a complaint… :lol:


----------



## Dimace

ArsMusica said:


> John Cage. Interesting coincidence that "charlatan" is the exact term that a very good friend of mine (a very fine composer) and I used in a discussion about Cage that we had earlier today.


I will give you a point here. Many times I was wondering what Cage was doing... His texts are good, but his music most of the times* a no go.

* with ''s''...


----------



## Roger Knox

Mahlerian said:


> I think Ludovico Einaudi is a charlatan. I don't believe that anyone could have a full musical training and actually believe that that sort of music is worth writing.
> 
> Schoenberg considered Koussevitsky a charlatan, because he couldn't read scores and apparently had assistants who played the piano reduction of a new work multiple times until he could conduct it himself.


Koussevitsky was a virtuoso double-bass soloist, the best of his time, before becoming a conductor. Even though he couldn't score-read it doesn't mean he was a charlatan.


----------



## Roger Knox

erroneus post . . . . . . . .


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> "Italians are all charlatans." --Mozart in a letter to his father


"Three Italians sitting around a kitchen table without food or drink is a sure sign of trouble." -A.A. Freda


----------



## JosefinaHW

Larkenfield said:


> "Three Italians sitting around a kitchen table without food or drink is a sure sign of trouble." -A.A. Freda


In another thread we talked about Expressionism in music and once most have screamed their primal scream we can then move on again in the great tradition of CM. I didn't forget about looking for an image--I was thinking of a painting, I just haven't found one. In this process of listening to The Ring and Wagner's other operas, I don't think an image would do that transition or rebirth justice. it's going to be conveyed by a new opera or opera cycle!

Do I expect this opera to be composed in my lifetime? No. I catch pieces of the Postmodernism thread in the New Activity listing. If most of the posters on there are reflective of some majority of the population, then it's going to take a long time for the transition. Does that bother me? Not any more and that's one amazing feeling of freedom and joy! As I'm almost certain, you already know that.


----------



## philoctetes

JosefinaHW said:


> In another thread we talked about Expressionism in music and once most have screamed their primal scream we can then move on again in the great tradition of CM. I didn't forget about looking for an image--I was thinking of a painting, I just haven't found one. In this process of listening to The Ring and Wagner's other operas, I don't think an image would do that transition or rebirth justice. it's going to be conveyed by a new opera or opera cycle!
> 
> Do I expect this opera to be composed in my lifetime? No. I catch pieces of the Postmodernism thread in the New Activity listing. If most of the posters on there are reflective of some majority of the population, then it's going to take a long time for the transition. Does that bother me? Not any more and that's one amazing feeling of freedom and joy! As I'm almost certain, you already know that.


Shostakovich and Mahler represented the primal scream within traditional harmony. For me Schoenberg, especially his chamber music, was a move to resolve this conflict and seed new forks or branches in the process. But this is not a typical view.

Those branches have grown rather dense and convoluted since Schoenberg, largely confined to the marginal darkness, but I think they will find their way into the sunlight sooner than later. Modern music is gradually closing a circle with the renaissance and baroque... the primal scream phase was medieval.

My choice for Charlatan of the Day would be Jeggie, as one Amazon reviewer calls him. I just can't stand his interpretations....


----------



## JosefinaHW

philoctetes said:


> Shostakovich and Mahler represented the primal scream within traditional harmony. For me Schoenberg, especially his chamber music, was a move to resolve this conflict and seed new forks or branches in the process. But this is not a typical view.
> 
> Those branches have grown rather dense and convoluted since Schoenberg, largely confined to the marginal darkness, but I think they will find their way into the sunlight sooner than later. Modern music is gradually closing a circle with the renaissance and baroque... the primal scream phase was medieval.
> 
> My choice for Charlatan of the Day would be Jeggie, as one Amazon reviewer calls him. I just can't stand his interpretations....


Warm Greetings, Philoctetes! I am not sure if we are understanding one another correctly. (It really hasn't been that long since I logged back in and I've missed 757 posts! That's sort of mind boggling; but ultimately it is a good sign of the health of the forum and I always welcome signs of that. I point this out because musically, with a minor exception or two, I have been focused on Wagner's Ring--and I am enjoying that, but in the process my mind is very focused so I'm missing what ever else is going on here.

What I was saying re/ Expressionist music and a new Ring Cycle might be along lines that you quite possible will greatly dislike if I have not expressed myself clearly. This topic came up in a thread in the Music Theory section entitled something to the effect of Bach's chord progressions. If you are interested enough you might want to scan through that thread where my posts begin. By way of a little background, I'm not sure that those who are very fond of some 20th century music would agree that I am calling quite a bit of that music Expressionistic. I did not mean it as a great compliment at all. I am a great fan of Expressionist painting/drawing, and value to a great deal the need for an artist to shout out at other viewers his/her pain, suffering, sense of meaninglessness, sense of purposelessness, rage over all the s--t in the world.

Expressionistic music (or what I and possibly Larkenfield consider expressionist music) is music that wants to explore the ugliness, the nastiness, the waste of a great deal of what occurred in the 20th century and injustices that have occurred throughout human history. There is order in Schoenberg's music and I admire him for exploring and creating something new. But for me it was an experiment and a failed one. I am working on music theory and harmony right now, so I do not claim to be an expert and I am STILL VERY OPEN to re-evaluating some 20th music. I was thinking on a much larger scale of society and religion and culture as a whole. I think we are in tremendous need of respect for some beliefs and values and structures that many would call traditional. BUT, I also think that there are many people/groups who have been treated terribly by some aspects of traditionalism. All those groups and people should be able to voice their rage for a time, as a catharsis, and then we move on and consider what is valuable in our traditions because I think there is a great deal of value there.

I don't know if I have been clear, but I wanted to open a conversation with you because I wonder if I'm a bit more conservative that you and I did not want you to be misled. I will say this; I am always open to examine and change my current thinking or behavior if I think it needs to be changed.

All My Best!


----------



## Larkenfield

Schumann by Rosemary Brown:






In the style of Chopin:


----------



## Simon23

Norrington, of course.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Simon23 said:


> Norrington, of course.


David Hurwitz might agree with you, judging by how he's trashed him in the past.


----------



## Simon23

I have little interest in the opinions of critics, but if Hurwitz thinks so, then I'm glad)). Much more often, the opposite is true - critics praise HIP, as it is a very fashionable commercial trend today.


----------



## SanAntone

There are no charlatans among the musicians, performers and composers, who are highly trained professionals. They have artistic integrity and are creating their art to the best of their abilities according to their aesthetic goals.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> There are no charlatans among the musicians, performers and composers, who are highly trained professionals. They have artistic integrity and are creating their art to the best of their abilities according to their aesthetic goals.


It's true, in the performance field, the phonies just don't make it....in the conducting arena, there are many phonies, but they are ultimately exposed, and may or may not find their musical niche...
You can't get in front of a professional orchestra and bs your way thru...the musicians quickly assess the ability/inability of the conductor.


----------

