[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [F_minor]http://archives.radio-canada.ca/arts_culture/musique/dossiers/309/

The Ostwald bio comes to mind - however, it came out prior to the Aspergers "aspersions"; i.e., before Aspergers became fashionable ... thus it's actually fairly subdued and in good taste, comparatively... just didn't seem to add much either to our understanding....

Christiane Reinhold, Ph.D., PMP
Manager, Public Services

Management & Technology Consultants

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1500
Austin, TX 78701

T + 1 512 542 5351
C + 1 512 680 7537
F + 1 512 382 3386


-----Original Message-----
From: f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu [mailto:f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu] On Behalf Of Etha Williams
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:12 PM
To: Houpt, Fred
Cc: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [F_minor]http://archives.radio-canada.ca/arts_culture/musique/dossiers/309/

Psychobiography, and in particular psychobiography-by-diagnosis, really gets
on my nerves. Diagnosis is a useful tool in the practice of
psychology/psychiatry, certainly -- it allows one to create a simplified
model of a person (or an aspect of the person anyway) and thereby help them
more effectively. But as a biographical tool? What use is simplification in
trying to create a picture of a life? I haven't yet (and admittedly I am
still young...) managed to create anything resembling a neat, consistent,
coherent concept of myself, my own beliefs, and my own priorities -- to
think I could do this for someone else seems the height of arrogance. And
these psychobiographical diagnoses are often given with such a tone of
authority, too...as though to say "this is how you should understand this
person, end of discussion."

I find this especially problematic with post-mortem psychobiography, since
the person in question is no longer able to challenge the propositions made
about them. Any competent psychiatrist should see the problem with this
approach, as a diagnostic session always involves interaction with the
patient himself, a process that often leads to considerable insight.

(I expect a forthcoming detailed rebuttal of this argument from S.F. Lemming


On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Houpt, Fred <fred.houpt@rbc.com> wrote:

> I am not sure (because all my sheet music is at home) exactly which
> piece he plays on the television studio spot.  For me it is so charged
> with power and very satisfying.
> On one of the CBC English spots (on the web site link I gave yesterday)
> there is a clip of a GG documentary and in it you get several "experts"
> chime in on what they figure GG had.  There is the guy who figured it
> was aspergers (sp??) syndrome and a psychiatrist said it was mental and
> emotional stuff.  Who knows.
> I think so called experts make much too much of how artists sway and
> move and bop at their instrument.  Did these same experts decide that
> Oscar Peterson must have had a problem with his mind because he hummed
> like a buzz saw, all throughout his career?  Who cares if they do that?
> Listen to how he rips up the keys and gives you goosebumps.  That's what
> is important.  Who cares if they drool, have their eyes roll up into
> their skulls.  They just might be caught in an updraft of creative
> power?
> Maybe these so called experts have never felt ecstasy at playing a
> musical instrument?  How else is a person supposed to "look" or appear
> when they are in an ecstasy?  Calm and subdued?  Honestly, we should
> honor and respect our musical performers and just let then howl. I can
> still hear Keith Jarrett as he pounds his feet, shouts, howls and
> screeches his way through the immortal "Koln Concert".  A rendition that
> his admirers feel is his very best and still moves the heart deeply.
> Perhaps what we GG fans need to do is to re-educate the critics and open
> their eyes to other possibilities?  The human condition, when it
> encounters music, just makes us act differently.  Think of all those
> African tribes that drum themselves into a total frenzy, often enabling
> many of them to enter high shamanic states of trance.  What of it? Are
> they freaks?  Ok, I'm in a froth now so I better stop.....
> Fred
> -----Original Message-----
> From: f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu
> [mailto:f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Lehman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:03 AM
> To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re:
> [F_minor]http://archives.radio-canada.ca/arts_culture/musique/dossiers/3
> 09/
> Yes, well played.  It really gets him sweating, too: how hot was it in
> there with the lights and that coat?  I think it's kind of funny how GG
> swings around so much...and the cameraman tries to keep him in the
> shot....
> I put on GG's later recording of this piece after watching the
> television version.  It's much slower, taking two minutes longer.  What
> a difference!  I like the drive of that televised performance better.
> It's not really "late" Beethoven; B was only 31 when it was published.
> Same year as the so-called "Moonlight" and a bunch of other sonatas.
> Brad Lehman
> Houpt, Fred wrote:
> > The first sample on this page "homme au piano" has Glen playing a late
> > Beethoven sonata.  It is simply spine-tingling.  Listen for the power
> > of the fast sections, contrasted with the most loving and delicate
> > aria notes of the solo (voice), sung (played) with such pathos.  It is
> > a movement to die for and I've never heard it more super charged and
> > exciting.
> >
> > In a word "wow"
> _______________________________________________
> F_minor mailing list
> F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> _______________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not
> waive any related rights and obligations.
> Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
> contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized.
> If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or
> otherwise) immediately.
> Ce courrier électronique est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne
> renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent.
> Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements
> qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s)
> désigné(s) est interdite.
> Si vous recevez ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser
> immédiatement, par retour de courrier électronique ou par un autre moyen.
> _______________________________________________
>  F_minor mailing list
> F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor

Version: 3.12
GAT d@ s--:-->--- a20 C+++(++)(++++) !U P+>P++ L>L+ E- W@ N-(N--) !o K>K++
!w O? M+(M++) V? !PS(PS?)(PS+) !PE(PE) Y+ PGP? t* 5 X R>R+ tv++ b+@>b++(b+++)
DI@>DI+ !D(D---)
G++>G+++ e++ h*(h)(h+) !r(r--)(r-) x-
F_minor mailing list

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
F_minor mailing list