Appropriate Use Policy

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a
dipshit poster on A.R.B.R.

nget

More Ed Gin [censored].

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.

But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Biggest Waste of Mankind - Minnesota

More Ed Gin [censored].

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a
dipshit poster on A.R.B.R.

More Ed Gin [censored].

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I Jim McNamara do not get nearly enough attention. Look at me JimmyMac
acting like a total [censored] for brains moron ... aren't I a wonderful [censored]
with a diversionary life. At least the pretentious Ed Dolan kisses my ass.

My advice to all USEnet readers is to killfile me JimmyMac.
The methodology to purge newsgroups of those nuisances
like me Jim McNamara and Ed "old puttz" Dolan will work.
I Jim McNamara will love for all you to do just that. No need
for a criminal like me Jim McNamara to continue to post my [censored].
Hell I'm too much of a chicken [censored] to deal with people in lif
so I keep attacking like a [censored] behind my keyboard.

I Jim McNamara will now refer to Ed Dolan and myself as big
nuisances. We are the consummate, quintessential nuisances. Like I
said in the past ... I Jim McNamara am a vandal, a late night
linseed oil criminal, unscrupulous, slimy and a bottom feeding
troll ... an oozing festering, canker of all Internet forums.

More Ed Gin [censored].

More of the smae Ed Dolan [censored].

Fred

Edward Dolan said:

Fred said:

More of the smae Ed Dolan [censored].

Fred

Edward Dolan said:

I think Fred might be drinking.

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

More of the smae Ed Dolan [censored].

Fred

More Ed Gin [censored].

Just zis Guy said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings
and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

quote='Peter Clinch'Just zis Guy said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings
and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/[/QUOTE]
Personally I rather enjoy reading what the Englishmen have to say.It is not so much what they say but rather how they say it.

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard

it

Quoted message said:

himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it,
as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/
to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having
said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there
such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding
then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings
and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Personally I rather enjoy reading what the Englishmen have to say.It is
not so much what they say but rather how they say it.

--
nget

Yes. Flamewars come an go on arbr, but none so well expressed as this one.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:44:26 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different.

One of the local music shops has a cartoon with three blokes in
surgical garb clutching saws and other instruments, a big wooden
barrel (presumably of ether) and a rather nervous looking patient.
The caption is "We're the London Consort of Surgeons, and we perform
authentic operations using period instruments."

Well it made me laugh anyway :-)

Quoted message said:

If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Indeed. And modern instruments keep their pitch better ;-) But there
is something to be said for at least listening to a piece on the
instrument for which it was composed - we can only dream what Bach
would have made of a modern concert grand.

I've just been listening to a Sinfonia da Caccia for four horns and
strings by Leopold Mozart, played on natural horns. It's a radically
different sound from that which you'd get on a valve horn. Better?
Hard to say. I'm not sure if modern shotguns sound any better
either...

Quoted message said:

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings
and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
keep in tune.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as it
was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to be
performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use forces
that would be different from those that /would/ have been used had it ever
been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.

Quoted message said:

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to listen
to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said that
there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such a
word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then he
clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings and/or
comedy sound reproduction equipment.

How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time to
time.

I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord too.
But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding into
another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is a very
small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so are my
ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a couple
of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time I looked
they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.

Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now or
in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used had
it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.

Quoted message said:

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has [censored] recordings and/or
comedy sound reproduction equipment.

How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time
to time.

I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord
too. But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding
into another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is
a very small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so
are my ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a
couple of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time
I looked they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.

Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now
or in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Relatively speaking I don't know diddly squat (I do know Bo Diddly though)
about opera or classical music. But I mostly enjoy Mozart and also Chopin's
piano pieces. How come you guys never mention them? Are they chopped
liver?

By the way Ed, my library has a large CD collection, many of which have been
ripped to my computer. Check out you local library why don't you.

It's nice to be a pleasant bike ride away from a good library. CD's are
much easier to deal with on the bike than the 33 1/3 rpm records were. Has
anyone else been riding bikes that long?

skip

Edward Dolan said:

Perry has spent too much time on computers and not enough time in

libraries.

Look at this website. It's easy to realize who spends "too much time
on computers." You're right in that I do not spend much time bragging
about my time in libraries. I just read books, be with friends, other
endeavors.........

It's not too late to crawl out of your closet and get a life!

Quoted message said:

Words are slippery as hell.

Life-long liars are "slippery as hell" too!

Quoted message said:

They can have multiple meanings and definitions
depending on the context in which they are used.

Life-long liars use "multiple meanings and definitions" in their
denial! That is why you are alone!

Quoted message said:

However, I know this is
going right over his head. I need to remind myself to keep things

simple for

Quoted message said:

Perry Butler so he can understand what is being said.

You have to keep things simple because that is the way you think!

Quoted message said:

Complexities and
difficulties are not for him.

I find you neither complex nor difficult. Just thick!

You just don't get the fact that Ed Gin (or whoever?) was going after
you, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Perry B

Just zis Guy said:

Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
keep in tune.

Easier than a Mellotron though... ("Tuning Mellotrons doesn't"- Robert
Fripp).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:59:27 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
keep in tune.

Quoted message said:

Easier than a Mellotron though... ("Tuning Mellotrons doesn't"- Robert
Fripp).

I can well believe it. Somewhere on Radio 3's Listen Again there
should be an interview with Bob Moog broadcast on Sunday evening, if
you're interested.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

It's a complex issue, I know, but Bach's approval of the fortepianos he
tried, and his description of keyboard pieces as just that - pieces for
keyboard - give a fair amount of leeway for what is right and proper for
performances of Bach's keyboard works. I was persuaded of some of the
merits of Bach on the piano by Glenn Gould's two publicly released
recordings of the Goldberg Variations; if you haven't heard Murray
Perahia's recording of the same piece, you're missing a most
extraordinary treat.

<Devil's advocate> But all this begs the question, why on earth should we
want to hear Bach as Bach heard it? Historical accuracy in performance
is not an aesthetic virtue; I'd submit it has nothing to do with
aesthetics at all (as witness so many scratchily worthy recordings by
e.g. Heinrich Goebel and his Cologne bunch). Research may illuminate all
sorts of details of score or performance; but that doesn't mean that the
one-to-a-part performances by Rifkin, say, or Jeggsie's sewing-machine
tempi, are intrinsically *better* - in any sense other than drily
historical - than Karajan's big-band approach. </Devil's advocate>

Wildly OT, I know, but does anybody know of a newsgroup for recumbent
bikes & trikes?

--
Mark, UK.

"Sir, Sunday morning, although recurring at regular and well
foreseen intervals, always seems to take this railway by
surprise."

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:29:01 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.

For differing values of "right" and "correct".

Quoted message said:

How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time to
time.

Ah, so it's OK to invent a word but not OK to use a word in a way that
Dolan thinks is wrong. How very heptaglemious for you. I find your
approach positively excrubrigational.

Quoted message said:

I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord too.
But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding into
another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is a very
small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so are my
ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a couple
of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time I looked
they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.

Wrong on so many counts it is hard to know where to start. Budget CDs
can be had for under $10, and that includes reissues of some of the
great recordings (I paid under £5 for du Pré's recording of the Elgar
cello concerto and of the 300+ CDs in my collection I don't think more
than a quarter are full price, and most of those were gifts); budget
LPs have notoriously poor sound recording quality, if you want high
quality sound you need something like Telarc or a full-price Deutsche
Grammophon recording; the organ is rightly known as the king of
instruments, and if you think it sounds bad then you have bad sound
equipment or bad recordings - there are a lot - I recommend the Decca
recordings of the complete Bach organ works by Peter Hurford; if your
sound equipment and ears cannot detect the poor quality of an ancient
budget LP then there is something Not Right, my old piano tuner could
identify the make of piano when I played a CD on my setup (Mission
Cyrus amp and Tannoy DC2000 speakers).

Quoted message said:

Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now or
in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.

Because he was obsessed with a certain kind of sound. I do not think
that Glen Gould is the final arbiter of how Bach should sound, and I
don't share the quasi-religious reverence in which his recordings are
held. Perahia's recordings are also excellent, and there are others.
To say that Gould is "better" than Landowska is to be completely
arbitrary. And is Gould (1955) "better" than Gould (1981)? Or is the
1959 Salzburg recording best? Whatever, there is no possible doubt
that the work was intended to be played on a two-manual harpsichord,
and until you've heard a decent recording of it on that instrument you
can't really say whether the piano version (or indeed Wendy Carlos' or
Jacques Loussier's) is "better", "worse" or just different. De
gustibus non est disputandum, after all.

The other day I listened back to back to the rondo from Mozart's Eb
horn concerto no. 4 played by Dennis Brain, Barry Tuckwell and Peter
Damm. Three very different performances, and any judgment of which is
best is entirely subjective.

Ed, you have painted us a picture of yourself as a man with narrow
tastes and no tolerance. Come to think of it I don't think that added
much to the body of human knowledge.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:47:08 -0600, "skip" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Relatively speaking I don't know diddly squat (I do know Bo Diddly though)
about opera or classical music. But I mostly enjoy Mozart and also Chopin's
piano pieces. How come you guys never mention them? Are they chopped
liver?

I think you'll find that I mentioned Mozart once or twice (and even
his father Leopold in at least one post). I don't think Ed likes
Chopin - too modern. God knows what he makes of Khachaturian.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Edward Dolan said:

The only organ music I have ever liked are very small organs which
have a purity of tone. It may be however that great organs do have to
be heard live in a great cathedral.

One of the minimal number of classical wossnames in my collection is
Saint-Saen's Symphony No. 3 on which, if I remember correctly, the Orchestre
Symphonique de Montréal were in a studio in Canada while Peter Hurford was
playing the organ parts in Chartres cathedral. It sounds perfectly splendid
to my untutored ears, especially when one bangs it up a bit.

(returns to the Eagles Of Death Metal)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)