The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Post something just for the heck of it

As usual in Harnoncourt, he doesn't get the nuances in dynamics of the score, he unnecessarily (if ever it is necessary) "appuie", but at least it's not one of those dragging over-nine-minutes versions, and it's played with period instruments.

 
:confused: How come you're posting this emotional slush? Is there a new man in your life? Are you falling in love?

(BTW: I happen to believe Tchaik. is a genius in orchestration but I have to ration my listening to his over-tunefullness)
 
pat grimshaw said:
:confused: How come you're posting this emotional slush? Is there a new man in your life? Are you falling in love?

(BTW: I happen to believe Tchaik. is a genius in orchestration but I have to ration my listening to his over-tunefullness)
Click to expand...

No, I just wanted to remember which tune corresponds to which month. Indeed, -I felt like vomiting, almost physically, after a few minutes going over it, but since it was background music I ended up ignoring it until I decided to cut it off :mrgreen:

When have I ever been "in love"... even the couple of times I have been more or less infatuated I didn't feel in a Tchaiko mood. The orchestration is obviously not his: he wrote the work for piano. For Fuck's sake, pat, you shouldn't be reminded of that: it's popular and even close enough to your crappy XXth century tastes to always have that piece of info at hand in your memory bag.

Apart from all that: what kind of idiot, apart from falling in love, would be in love and jubbing through is days of being in love..? :roll:
 
pat grimshaw said:
You might be separated by circumstance. You might have Unrequited Love.
Click to expand...

That's not even love :roll:

You haven't read Cervantes much, have you: you would remember that any sensible person couldn't ever love anyone not loving them: it simply doesn't make any sense, and the contrary is just romantic rubbish set as a standard by the sick and repressed people of the decadent XIXth century.
 
belamo said:
...any sensible person couldn't ever love anyone not loving them...
Click to expand...
But love makes one insensible. I have been insensible a few times. (And no, no Cervantes for me. I have vowed to avoid fiction from now on. I will pick up an edited Cervantes though)
 
Oh, and let it be clear that I hate Robert Levin's versions, but what the hell, that score beats Dvořák any minute :cool: :mrgreen:
 
^ that seems too freaky.

But it I suppose it will be fashionable in ten years time. Because 2-headed babies are so loved now and changing-gender has become VERY fashionable in the rich countries.
 
belamo said:
...Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis ..
Click to expand...

The Tallis is interesting because—

1. It has the massed violins in two orchestras —*which can be mistaken for slush.

2. But all that is placed on a structure which is positively Bachian.

That exquisite 12 minute piece is a Bach skeleton wearing a Ravelian skin.

- - - Updated - - -

belamo said:
:mrgreen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/b...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
Click to expand...

I habe bookmarked that for later :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top