Happy Friday Gifts
for Elaine, Michael and everyone else who thought “a piece that has about as much artistic merit as a cameraphone snap of the neighbour’s cat” was overstating the point just a tad.
One for reals
And one for funsies.
Super extra funsies here and here
Elaine Fine | May 9, 2008 | Reply
I once wrote an article for a book called “Classical Music: The Listener’s Companion” where the length of the articles were supposed to reflect the number of entries in the standard record catalogs. I was therefore asked to write a rather extensive evaluation of every recording I could get my hands on (my entry is on pages 685-86 of the book, which is published by Backbeat Books). I had a blast comparing Munchinger with Slatkin, Karajan with Marriner, and Goebel with Pinnock. Rochberg wrote a great set of variations on it in his 6th String Quartet, and a lot of people have done a lot of harm to the piece by popping up arrangements of it (though I did enjoy the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet’s version.
When all is said and done, I prefer it in its pure form: three violins and a cello. It doesn’t even need a harpsichord continuo.
Elaine Fine | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Of course, I was talking about the article about Pachelbel in the book! In 1992, when the book was published, Pachelbel’s other music (there is a lot of it) was rather poorly represented in the recorded music available at the time.
Miss Mussel | May 12, 2008 | Reply
That’s an interesting concept for a book. So the more the piece was recorded, the more space was devoted to it in the overall text?
I suppose most compilation books work on that general principal anyway, now that I think about it. No one wants to read a 20-page essay on Punto’s 6th Horn Concerto….well at least not outside a doctoral program.