papeetepatrick

Definitely, and they'll sound much like recordings of that period I recently got hold of with Mary Garden accompanied by Debussy (I didn't know his recorded playing existed, or had forgotten), plus the earliest Caruso recordings, which I'd never heard. The latter were sometimes absolutely great, and it didn't matter at all about the tinny quality.

:blush: I love it, and fondly remember the exquisite photographs you posted of the First Fan enjoying his first Nutcracker...I think this political inclusivity should be emphasized by inviting the Outgoing First Fan to...at least one more performance of Nutcracker (it's, of course, always ridiculous the way they keep doing it after Xmas, so surely they can stretch it to the Inaugural things, or just be inclusive next Xmas...). Since such inclusivity may be read on the other side of the aisle as too bi-partisan, the Obamas may be lucky enough to get ABT instead of ABC.

This actually makes the old Laura Barton 'anti-opera article' make sense, esp. since she was Higgins's guide. Naturally the 'classical person' is going to experience it in a way that we sympathize with, but all the inaccuracies and literal untruths about Barton's own article now make sense, she did write about it as she saw it, and by now I find them about equally (mildly) interesting. It's like a kind of linguistic difference, and you can hear the different kinds of rhythms, as it were, in either, now that this one has been put next to the other one. The Barton one by itself just seems paltry, but now it seems more of a useful insider look, however rough and warty, than it did before.

These would either one be good, Martha Graham Dance Company even better IMO. I don't remember if there is an emphasis on local D.C. institutions or not--not a bad idea though. Any would set a good beginning tone, though. The Dixie Chicks would be all right for one of the pop things by now, I imagine. Here's a bit more on the auctions, which tells something about the other Arts, I'm sure, although I hope dirac is right: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/06/fall.art....tml?eref=rss_us How much these phenomena affect government arts funding I have no idea.

I remember reading 'the Andromeda Strain' long ago, and barely remember it. What I did really like was 1993's 'Rising Sun'. I think this is an excellent novel. I also liked 'Disclosure' pretty well (and never saw the film version), which was about the time when virtual reality became faddish in a lot of fiction and movies, as in the Oliver Stone/Bruce Wagner miniseries 'Wild Palms' for another example. I recall John Updike making a barb about him in one of his 90s novels. and this has become one of the things Updike does, making moral and esthetic judgment on colleagues or just on celebrities he thinks should be upbraided (although he's no match for Paul Theroux in that way.) I just bring this up because I am annoyed that Updike's barb would make me forget that I thought 'Rising Sun' was a truly good piece of page-turner fiction, and probably as good as Updike's 'Brazil' even.

Thanks for the links, they don't say too much except that they seem to be integrated in spirit with other government programs (they sound good, but not especially reassuring, in other words). I'd like to know who else doesn't think there'd be cuts, though (as well as why you think there won't, dirac). I would have thought there would be, not out of ideology (quite the opposite), but rather because things are disastrous right now, and expected to be for some time. We won't get the full effect of the Lehman failure on consumer confidence and other indices until January.

I imagine some of the candidates' real tastes are not always said, because they carry such symbols of what the candidate as art-consumer would be. Even if Bush had had a taste for Camus early on, it's unlikely he would have been talking about reading till midway through his second term. It's been needed to sound populist, so we'll probably find more about Obama's taste as the time goes by. I am nearly sure some cultural functions, such as the concerts that the president and first lady have from time to time, will be smarter than some of the ones I saw in early 2001. I do know that Obama likes 'The Wire' a lot. Other than that, his internationalism will definitely allow for more of a cosmopolitan culture, since he has always been not only urbane in style but urban in terms of where he's lived for the vast majority of his life. There have been articles recently about his being a 'metro president' perhaps even more than an 'urban president', insofar as suburbs in the great metro areas are now to be considered more connected to their central cities, which is easily seen in the way commercial culture has developed and become more standardized for urban/suburban, really they're very similar by now--Broadway musicals are all made now for the suburban sensibility more than for the urban, and have been for a couple of decades, nevermind Wal-Marts. Strictly urban forms like dance and opera (I mean the most prestigious companies, not that there isn't good work being done elsewhere) will still be at the urban center, but urban centers have themselves become less powerful than they used to be by a long shot. But I don't think you'll see Obama 'getting down on all fours' in culture, because he didn't ever do so in the campaign. I always though Cindy McCain would have been the more likely Jackie Kennedy and was salivating at the idea of redecorating the White House. The Obamas are smart people and I expect very good results and a real opening in many cultural areas, because it's not just a matter of 'what art things they like', but that they are essentially cosmopolitan, urban types and this is always where the bulk of serious art takes place. As for the arts institution policies, that's not something I've heard about in the campaigns, because it's such a small matter in the political arena, esp. at a time when great art treasures, paintings, sculpture at auction are all suffering in the financial crunch. I think Krugman had something a couple of weeks ago on his blog 'and now a word from the art world', where all this is explained.

Mostly agree with this, don't think it's actually 'disrespectful' at all, because I think the American Music theme is excellent (that's why no 'Liebeslieder', bobbi). Except that I don't want to go because don't care to see the Mostly Martins either. In any case, I'd rather see Basically Balanchine, but it got me to thinking that I can't think of that many Balanchine dances to American music. There's 'Fancy Free' and 'Slaughter on 10th Avenue' and 'Stars and Stripes' (they should have used this probably), as well as the ones up there, and there must be many more. Someone refresh me please on this. 'Square Dance' is Vivaldi, I think. I can't stand 'Calcium Light Night', but I don't expect Peter to feel that way about his own works, and it's just one performance. Deborah is also right that NYCB does always do a lot of Balanchine, that's why people support the company. They don't do more at ABT. The other awful thing about the programming is 3--count 'em--3 CHARLES IVES pieces. That is, I suppose, meant to be imaginative programming with the 3 choreographers all to Ives that most people don't want to hear nearly that much of. I don't think it's disrespectful, DeborahB, but I'm afraid I'm negative too, because I just think it's mostly a horrible program! Didn't anybody choreograph anything to Cage or Copland or Carter? One more Robbins and one less Martins woudn't have hurt either, maybe some of the 'west side story'. Ballet has probably not provided nearly as many opportunities for American composers as has modern dance, with all those beautiful American scores used by Martha Graham, for example, but there surely must have been a better way to do it than this. I also don't think they've used NYCO enough. The second half is far better than the first, and I like that they're using the Juilliard Jazz Orchestra.

Mel, thanks for all that information--esp. because it makes me remember again how I think Coral Browne is one of the most perfect actresses who ever came around to stage and screen--Edith Evans agrees, lavishing praise on her style and beauty that no other actress got, as I remember, except Gladys Cooper, who Edith described as being so beautiful when young as to always be 'straight from the bath.' But Browne is also even appropriate for this thread insofar as we talk about accents in general sometimes, not just bad ones. As an Australian, she nevertheless became one of the greatest practitioniers of those 'plummy accents' that sandik refers to--and I imagine Penelope Keith studied both hers and Evan's when she did a Lady Bracknell in London this year, as well as back in the 80s for her BBC sitcoms. But Australians are definitely not who we usually look to for the most upper-class English accents, and Coral's is amazing in 'The Killing of Sister George'. So that adds something to various commenters queries about non-Brits doing British accents. (I'm not sure whether, on the other hand, Deborah Kerr and Robert Mitchum did suitable Australian accents in 'The Sundowners'.) I had read some sort of sketchy bio of the Talmadge sisters, and while I think Norma is praised more, Constance is perhaps most memorable, because she was lucky enough to have the role of the Mountain Girl in Griffith's 'Intolerance.' They'd made so much money in innumerable silents that they claimed not to mind that they had to 'retire' in their 30s (I think it was that young.) There's still an old pile once owned by one of them on Franklin Avenue, Hollywood, that I photographed several years ago, but I never found out which one, but quiggin might know--it's either on or very close to Camino Palmero.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I've ever heard Talmadge's "real" voice. What I've heard of her (Idiot's Delight, mostly) is really plummy. Just looked up Talmadge, who made at least 2 talkies, but I think you may mean Norma Shearer for Idiot's Delight. I may try to find these early Talmadge talkies, though, to see what she did sound like. There are 'New York Nights' and 'Dubarry Woman of Passion', but I've never heard anything about these.

It probably is the standard way, but this is not exactly well-known material--so you were already well into the Rarefaction Territories if you had any knowledge even of its existence (I didn't). My point was the notation does not divide the 19 tones up equally, which the Indian srutis did, I'm fairly sure, because I recall that each pitch of 12 was divided into 2 pitches, making a relatively straightforward scale of quarter-tones, but I believe sometimes each of our tones was divided into three--you do the math if you want to, the fact is, there are many variations on these microtones.

I don't know how many things Shirley MacLaine was in past lives, since she's talked about them the most, but several of them were hookers, according to her. I think she said something about that's what she was 'channelling' in 'Irma la Douce' and 'Sweet Charity', as well as other roles with suspect pasts as in 'Some Came Running' and 'The Apartment' (in which especially good, both.) Agree, sandik, about excellent work at chalkboard-nails accent of Jean Hagen. I believe that was supposed to be based on Norma Talmadge's voice, wasn't it? one of the many who didn't make the transition to talkies. I don't think I ever heard Talmadge's voice though.

Isn't that the lesson preached by British papers like The Sun, the sort sometimes called "right-wing populist"? I've never cared that much about either the Bond movies or the books, except for Connery--but I like him in anything; he's just as suave in 'Marnie' as he is as Bond. I do agree with everything bart says except I don't think it's 'cultural ephimera' in any broad sense, because too influential on mores and modes; and think the quote he makes from the article is very good and says it well. I'd only want to know if Fleming was definitely the first to make it so explicit. It does seem to have been made very specifically so, as part of what we think of as the huge difference from the 50s that the 60s are/were. And it is that very brand of 'escapism' that does make it of social and ideological importance. Noel Coward's plays are usually about the sexual romping of the idle rich (as in 'Design for Living'), Fleming may be a more macho, somewhat more crass and Playboy Magazine progression from that and other kinds of work which flaunt permissiveness.

Patrick McGilligan's 'Nature of the Beast', an excellent bio of Fritz Lang, director of 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari', the 3 Dr. Mabuse films, 'Die Nibelungen', 'Metropolis', 'M', 'Scarlett Street', and many others. The exhaustive detail of early German film-making and the Ufa Studios is a great pleasure, but I had no idea what a sadistic person Lang was. He was tyrannical and cruel to all the stars (esp. Brigitte Helm as Maria and the robot-Maria), as well as the thousands of extras who he constantly put at great risk to their health and lives, and may even have killed his first wife Lisa Rosenthal. His mistress Thea Von Harbou, who was also his brilliant writer and collaborator through the 20s, testified to his innocence in court, but that doesn't prove anything, of course. I've seen some 15-18 of the films so I wanted to find out where they came from--and they are often involving crime, courtrooms, and the unjustly accused.

That link is very interesting, I see how he notates the quarter-tones, which is what they are with this number of pitches; it's even more fractional, of course, with the more tones per scale. If you look at the scale notated underneath 'Mysteries' after clicking on 'Microtonal Music', you can see that what he does is use what is a single pitch in its two different notations, in order to reach 19. It works like this: If you look at the 2nd and 3rd pitches, they are written as E Sharp and F Natural: This is the same pitch in the 12-tone scale, but written differently according to progression funtion, key, etc. As well, the 4th and 5th are written F Sharp and G Flat, which are also the same pitch in the 12-note scale. If he did this for every one of the 12 tones, there would be 24, but he does not notate 5 of the pitches except once: E Natural, G Natural, A Natural, B Natural, and D Natural. This is very strange that he would choose this, although some more delving would explain it, I'm sure. But with some of the enharmonic pitches not given, viz., for those 5 tones, it would give more the impression of some sharpness than if there were quarter tones around every note of the 12-note scale. Incidentally, the serialism would not have any effect on what you heard as sharpness, etc., because serialism has to do with the ordering of the pitches, which could 12, 19, or many other numbers (both real and almost imagined, I suppose; I once read that there was not 'absolute existence' of the Indian srutis, which I now realize is one of the weirdest things I've ever read, since they may have been referring to something other than just the microtones, i.e., something mystical.) So what sounded somewhat strange to you was the veering off usual pitch of 7 of the usual tones (unless this notation is not literal, in which case there might be a more equivalent division among all 19 tones.)

Yes, you could theoretically serialize any number of pitches. Was your impression that it sounded out-of-tune? because you're hearing 19 tones per octave rather than 12? By the time it got to high modernism, Boulez was serializing timbres, dynamics, and rhythmic figures as well as pitches, so there's probably no end to the experiments along these lines, that have been done over the years, even though there are some names that are very well-known, a few that are becoming well-known, some have been long-forgotten already, given that Boulez, Xennakis, and Stockhausen were all going to be imitated a lot due to their prominence. Haverstick is apparently pretty well-known, and here is another article in which he's shown to have been interested in the 34-tone scale, which this explains is 'less natural' than 19-tone and others. Very esoteric, but these things probably have their devoted followings, even though very out of the mainstream: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34_equal_temperament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Drummond Dean Drummond's Newband has the Harry Partch instruments which, as discussed in the wiki link posted by innopac, have up to 49 tones to the octave. I heard Newband in 1994 or 1995 and found much of it very beautiful. Partch was quite the back-to-nature person, with pieces like 'Cloud Chamber Music', and these built Partch instruments are among the most exotic things I've ever seen and heard. The concert was all Partch, with whom I had been familiar for some time. When I was doing some research on Indian music, the microtones called 'srutis' were discussed, so that the ancient Eastern musics have been working with these in a more natural way for much longer than Western musicians. A composer friend of mine could not enjoy the adjustment that is required of the ear to hear this music as you would any other, or rather to hear music we're most used to--he referred to is as being 'out-of-tune' which surprised me. Because this is, in fact, wrong, of course. The sensation that it is 'out of tune' comes only because out-of-tune instruments do themselves go into these microtones, which have to sharpened up and out to get the 12 tones as equally spaced and without any 'fuzz' of the always-neighboring microtones. You don't want any of the microtones in a conventionally-tuned piano, for example, because that's not what a piano (a 'non-prepared piano', that is) is. The terms 'twelve-tone music' referring to the systems developed beginning with Schoenberg and then Webern and most thoroughly with the high modernists interests me because, although it does destroy tonality when it is employed, tonal music equally has twelve tones. The hierarchies and orders, etc., are all different when serialization becomes more rigorous, but it's still the notes of the chromatic scale. I hadn't specifically heard of 19-tone music until now, though. These kinds of things will always be esoteric, because they are not an outgrowth of Western tradition, which 12-tone music (which, incidentally, can be even more difficult to listen to than Partch, Drummond, et alia) is, however. This kind of thing with microtones is more experimental and doesn't form a general united movement as such, or at least not that I'm aware.

Oh, you needn't worry about that--I expect to read all of them. There's no artist I admire more, and this state of awe and astonishment only seems to grow with time.

Hans! I got around to the pleasure of watching this again, and all three times are different. And it's as much the movement away from the suitor's hand as it is the often too anxious movement back. With Sizova, there is never the anxious movement back to the next hand, but on the first one, I thought that even she began with slightest nervousness as her hand left the first man (but it works when this only happens once!). Then with the second, she becomes more confident in both moving up and back, but it's the third which is so impeccably self-assured and at totally commanding ease that just knocks you out. And, although the Fonteyn you linked to a few weeks ago is no longer available, I didn't think she came even near what Sizova achieves here: The movement in a few seconds (perhaps twenty?) from slightly nervous to serenely confident is one of the most incredible achievements I've ever seen, because it works physically in such a way that there is no separation from the physical, the musical, and the dramatic. Paul had mentioned the 'she has to become the queen', and here you see her make the transformation in these three movements of the arm, which may themselves make the balance have three different and progressively stronger 'personalities', even though it is itself almost stationary (correct me on this, I imagine, there may be slight movement with each hand change, but it's hard to see on film), but it surely has had to grow in strength and confidence, and the arms may both lend strength to them and their growing strength also allows the arms to really flow. In fact, by the 3rd one, there is not even the slightest speeding of the 'dancer-music', because there doesn't need to be any further consideration given to security. So I agree Sizova's is by far the most regal, but I also think she really does not do them so much 'slowly', but does not speed against the music, and progressively becomes exactly bonded with it. It's really been worth it to concentrate on this single moment, because it's very brief the transformation Aurora makes, and the initial first slightly nervous move away makes the 3rd movement up and back this kind of miracle. Edited to add: I just watched it yet again, and the 3rd time the hand comes back down, Sizova really does take a little extra time, a kind of leisure--and that has the effect of making you even forget that it's a balance going on. Oh, MAN!!! she had what it takes.

Oh, the Notebooks, rg! Yes, that's what I want to see most, and NYPL has several copies, so I've just ordered one. I was just thinking about having visited the incredibly beautiful and rarefied Noguchi Museum in Astoria in 2000. I had no idea that I'd see Jocasta's chair there. It's surely the original, isn't it? I just now watched 'Night Journey' again, and the way this complex and horribly beautiful structure is used is just indescribably. I think the rocking chair from 'Appalachian Spring' is there, too, but I'm not sure and have decided to go out there again in the next few weeks. I like what you say about 'Martha's voice', because this voice is so moving in all its forms. In the 1976 Dance in America, the way she talks about 'Adoration' is deeply affecting, holy even; and just as much so aswhen she is talking about the woman in Brooklyn who came up to her after seeing 'Lamentation.' Right now I'm stuck on 'Diversion of Angels', and have to keep watching it over and over, and love DelloJoio's music too. This 'desire to memorize' a work has always been a sign for me of the works I most cared about, whether in literature, music or dance. I have 2 tapes of it right now, and they don't seem to be exactly the same. One is the Dance in America with Martha's introductions to each piece, and the other is from 1991 at Palais Garnier, shortly after her death. It may have been the dancers, but at this point of watching them only 3 or 4 times each, I am somewhat more taken with the 1991 one. But the McDonagh is going to help too.

Thanks so much, dirac. I will take a look at those forthwith. Yes, I definitely need to read the De Mille.

I'd like to know the best books on Graham's life--especially if there's something very good from after her death on her life; but also the most authoritative on the career and all the works, this would interest me the most, even if it's older and doesn't cover the later periods. I'm sure there's a lot of material down there, but I'd prefer to get bogged down in the less good documents after starting with the best ones. Mel? Sandik? Alexandra? Anyone? Please tell me the best, as I am really inspired by her extraordinary genius more and more as I watch the old films and remember what I've seen live of the company in recent years (although I never saw Martha herself live, I adore the films of 'Night Journey' and 'Appalachian Spring' with her dancing).

It definitely could be. The Jacques Demy/Michel Legrand film certainly was a real beauty, with Delphine Seyrig as one of the greatest Lilac Faeries (literally, too, that was her character, and a very witty one it was) I've ever seen

Thanks for posting, Farrell Fan. While the Balanchine choreography is obviously the most important matter here, it is more than even usually fascinating to find a major ballet critic THIS ignorant about music. Iannis Xennakis was one of the most important international composers of the second half of the 20th century, and Balanchine was perfectly aware of this (as, I'm sure, is Farrell). No one expects dance critics to know as much about music as they do about dance (or as much about music as dancers themselves do), but this is easily the most pathetic and absurd statement about a major 20th century composer I've ever read by a major dance critic--and even Macauley's love of Minkus is not fatuous in the same sense. I may dislike Minkus, but I can't prove Macauley shouldn't. Fortunately, Gottlieb's words don't matter a whit--I'd still like to see the ballet and almost did last week, but just didn't have time. I'm sure Farrell has done something good with it, although I'd have rather seen it back in 1968, when it was fresh and all of it known to be 'there'. Xennakis is very difficult and highly intellectual music--one doesn't expect someone like Gottlieb to be able to enter into it in even the most superficial way, but that kind of music does not usually find itself dealt with this kind of extreme vapidity, which is a mere supercilious dismissal by somebody about something about which he knows nothing. It's really extremely embarassing. Balanchine even played, or sightread at least, some Xennakis scores at the piano, I am sure he did not do so because he thought it was 'hardly of consequence'.

Except for 'Paris Blues', all of their movies together were like that. She was always what brought this subtle exoticism to their films, whether 'The Long Hot Summer' or 'From the Terrace' . I think she may have been the first major actress to use her natural Southern accent a lot (also in 'The Fugitive Kind', of course, with Brando and Magnani and 'The Three Faces of Eve'). I saw a few of these films when they came out and I always went for her; only later did I find out that he was a bigger star, despite her Oscar and excellent reputation. I'd see something like 'Cool Hand Luke' and think 'oh, that was really great', and it would evaporate in a day or two, whereas I've never forgotten aspects of 'Rachel, Rachel', and I never saw it except after its original release. I always did like him, but there was not in the acting as much intensity or 'bite' as several other actors had, and very little sense of mystery. But in "paris blues', there's a wonderful moment in which they get silly together, and it has this very spontaneous quality of one's laughter stimulating the other's, and you just see Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward for a minute or two, it doesn't much get in the way of their 'characters'--who aren't all that boldly defined in that movie anyway. Things like 'The Color of Money' I respect, but don't like. 'Twilight' was probably the most recent thing I saw him in (with Susan Sarandon), and I found that very forgettable, reminded me a bit of '52 Pick-up' with Ann-Margret and Roy Scheider, but with little of the grit and occasional ferocity that film had. Thanks for mentioning the PBS 'Our Town', sandik. NYPL has plenty of copies and I am going to be interested to see it.