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 InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.
Post something just for the heck of it
- Thread starter belamyi
- Start date
- Featured
Harke the Boeotarch
Dreams Wash Away
Well, if you can not discern the mere craft of singing from its aesthetic result, you really do have bad taste.
And that without going into discerning Verdi or Puccini or Wagner from Rossini or Bellini or Donizetti, and they all from Mozart or Haendel or Bach, because what would become all those tenor voices and their precious singing when faced with the scores of the XVIIIth century musical tradition.
Apart from that, if I cared that much at all, leaving aside his sense of musicality, I would feel more outraged by the quality of Schipa's recording, than by Kraus' nasality and shortcomings in general: if I want to imagine how a score should sound, I have my own mind, I do not need a shabby recording of Schipa's, Kraus' or whoever else's singing voice.
I've just listened to his rendition of the 'Furtiva Lacrima', and it is a perfect further example of the point I commented before: excellent technique/s, little of music, barely any 'great' art... and canto drifting somewhere and nowhere among all that. You can admire Schipa as much as you want, and I will join you... but not beyond the territory in which he deserves recognition and praise.
All his great craft in the singing, which we all can admire in the terms presented in TIO, is destroyed by the decadent "musical" sensibility that grabbed two centuries of Western musical tradition to concoct that monstrosity commonly referred to as "Common Practice Period" which, as far as opera goes, understands that The Way to render anything composed between 1750 and 1925 should follow the Schipa's way, just like Toscanini was taken for the conducting standard... which is hardly The Way for any given period at all.
I concur with virtually everything being said in this channel about what is called "old" and "new" singers, and about theatrical wannabe modernism, but the author seems to forget that the sensibility that s/he seems to consider the "original", the "peak" of operatic achievement, was nothing but an old decadent "new" in relation to older traditions. It's not like there was a general standard from 1800, 1750 or 1850 on , that has been being destroyed and replaced only for the past thirty years or so.
And that without going into discerning Verdi or Puccini or Wagner from Rossini or Bellini or Donizetti, and they all from Mozart or Haendel or Bach, because what would become all those tenor voices and their precious singing when faced with the scores of the XVIIIth century musical tradition.
Apart from that, if I cared that much at all, leaving aside his sense of musicality, I would feel more outraged by the quality of Schipa's recording, than by Kraus' nasality and shortcomings in general: if I want to imagine how a score should sound, I have my own mind, I do not need a shabby recording of Schipa's, Kraus' or whoever else's singing voice.
I've just listened to his rendition of the 'Furtiva Lacrima', and it is a perfect further example of the point I commented before: excellent technique/s, little of music, barely any 'great' art... and canto drifting somewhere and nowhere among all that. You can admire Schipa as much as you want, and I will join you... but not beyond the territory in which he deserves recognition and praise.
All his great craft in the singing, which we all can admire in the terms presented in TIO, is destroyed by the decadent "musical" sensibility that grabbed two centuries of Western musical tradition to concoct that monstrosity commonly referred to as "Common Practice Period" which, as far as opera goes, understands that The Way to render anything composed between 1750 and 1925 should follow the Schipa's way, just like Toscanini was taken for the conducting standard... which is hardly The Way for any given period at all.
I concur with virtually everything being said in this channel about what is called "old" and "new" singers, and about theatrical wannabe modernism, but the author seems to forget that the sensibility that s/he seems to consider the "original", the "peak" of operatic achievement, was nothing but an old decadent "new" in relation to older traditions. It's not like there was a general standard from 1800, 1750 or 1850 on , that has been being destroyed and replaced only for the past thirty years or so.
As soon as I saw Hugo Weaving appear with his Hugo Weaving expression, it occurred to me that I was watching a parody... further fostered by the summoning of Liv Tyler with her Liv Tyler expression: I guess it would have been funnier if I had put the sound on.
Harke the Boeotarch
Dreams Wash Away
^ It does look a little like an Aerosmith videoclip... but it's one of the most dramatic scenes in the whole of the LOTR trilogy.
Harke the Boeotarch
Dreams Wash Away
^ "Greek subtitles" eh?
Harke the Boeotarch
Dreams Wash Away
^ He's no match for the chihuahuahuahuahuahua!