GaryKelly wrote:Describing a C-natural as "sheer ecstacy" tells me nothing that "impeccably in tune" didn't already, and phrases like "enveloped in its blissful purity of sweep, its elegant swift carriage of lightness and power" wouldn't make it past my fingertips let alone my editor.
Agreed. Even so, it was nowhere near as over-the-top as the "reviews" you see in audiophile magazines. Those folks have invented an entire new vocabulary of nonsense to explain why their $6000 monoblock amplifiers sound better than anything else, in spite of the fact that neither expensive instrumentation nor mere mortal ears can detect any difference between the output of the $6000 monoblock and a decent quality consumer stereo costing less than a tenth as much.
John
-------
The Internet is wonderful. Surely there have always been thousands of people deeply concerned about my sex life and the quality of my septic tank but before the Internet I never heard from any of them.
OutOfBreath wrote:Agreed. Even so, it was nowhere near as over-the-top as the "reviews" you see in audiophile magazines. Those folks have invented an entire new vocabulary of nonsense...
And it doesn't hold a candle to the reviews that are written in some art magazines. At a friend's house, I was reading magazine specializing in sculpture. I was looking at a picture of something that looked like a large granite ball in someone's yard, and reading about how it supposedly expressed the ability to transition through the edges of our pluralistic society, how the artist found inspiration in the more galactic ideals of the solar system, blah, blah, blah. Sounded like they let a junior high composition class loose with a thesarus. :roll:
I enjoyed L.E.'s review and didn't think anyone should take offense at the title. Things just get too complicated...
Just read the review,which I enjoyed.I like L.E.'s writing,and enjoyed his 'Saint Patrick was a Cajun' album,but I couldn't get away with his whistle tutor-it just seemed to be TOO crammed with ornaments.
Then again,it was a couple of years since I bought it,and it was probably way,way advanced for me at the time(probably still is!).
L.E. seems like a good bloke though,always a pleasure to read about what he's up to.
It was the description of the festival stage situation that grabbed my attention. Pearls before swine. Reminded me of Spinal Tap.
Speaking of which...I'm about to walk into a disaster waiting to happen. Last year I played at the Scottish Highland Games in our area and it worked out fine. This year, the music organizer/sound man, who is a friend of mine and a great guy, emailed me that he'd be running a different stage and would give us a brief orientation to the sound system and we'd have to tweak it ourselves. (gastric acid rising into esophagus- 'oh, the pain'- in the immortal words of Dr Smith). He also advised us to be prepared to do three 45min sets (we were preparing for, and expecting one 45min set). I guess they didn't book enough performers. (It's this Saturday.)
All I can say is, I hope they like tin whistle...And I ain't no LE McCullough.
Tony
http://tinwhistletunes.com/clipssnip/newspage.htm Officially, the government uses the term “flap,” describing it as “a condition, a situation or a state of being, of a group of persons, characterized by an advanced degree of confusion that has not quite reached panic proportions.”
Aye, a good bloke indeed. Please don't misconstrue my criticism of his endorsement in the newsletter as being a criticism of the gentleman himself. His tutor book was the first I bought, and The Wicklow Hornpipe therein the first tune I learned. I still find myself muttering "Now let's try some grace notes and variations" before playing it from time to time
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
I think the essense of the review wasn't what he literally wrote about the whistle. The point was that even in an uninspiring setting, the first time the whistle was played in public, it's qualities opened a door to unthought-of variations and techniques. The properties of the whistle weren't analyzed and pored over, they leapt straight through his subconscious and into his fingers spontaneously, which is pretty magical. This says something about the whistle which defies cold, hard analysis. A laundry list of the whistle's characteristics is one thing. The opening of new doors and the breaking through of personal preconceptions is another.
It was a bit florid for my tastes too, but the point came across nicely I thought.
GaryKelly wrote: But I don't think it warrants the headline attributed to it by Dale (I'm assuming it was Dale that wrote the headline), and as a 'review', it's sparse.
No. That headline was actually written by Mr. Jason Blair, formerly of the New York Times. He's an intern here now!
GaryKelly wrote: But I don't think it warrants the headline attributed to it by Dale (I'm assuming it was Dale that wrote the headline), and as a 'review', it's sparse.
No. That headline was actually written by Mr. Jason Blair, formerly of the New York Times. He's an intern here now!
Dale
And I'm sure he'll do at least as much for the newsletter's credibility as he did for the Times.
OutOfBreath wrote:Agreed. Even so, it was nowhere near as over-the-top as the "reviews" you see in audiophile magazines. Those folks have invented an entire new vocabulary of nonsense...
And it doesn't hold a candle to the reviews that are written in some art magazines. At a friend's house, I was reading magazine specializing in sculpture. I was looking at a picture of something that looked like a large granite ball in someone's yard, and reading about how it supposedly expressed the ability to transition through the edges of our pluralistic society, how the artist found inspiration in the more galactic ideals of the solar system, blah, blah, blah. Sounded like they let a junior high composition class loose with a thesarus. :roll:
I enjoyed L.E.'s review and didn't think anyone should take offense at the title. Things just get too complicated...
Speaking of art reviews. 25 years ago, when I was living in Memphis, there came to the Memphis Museum of Art an exhibit of photographs called "Memphis In Random/February." I happened to see it. An explanatory brochure described how the photos were made. The photographer used random numbers for virtually all aspects of decision making about the photos. She used some kind of random numbers to generate map coodinates and then once in that general area, used some other random number process to position the camera and then a random number between, I suppose 1 and 359 to position the camera on one axis, and another number in that range for another axis, and so on. Then the photographer chose an f-stop at random and a shutter speed at random. I can't recall if she randomized the focus but I'm sure she found a way, continuous though focus is. Then, she selected a random time within a span of, I don't remember, several hours I guess, to take the photo. There were, perhaps, 30 photographs on display. I recall that several were completely dark. Several completely white. And a few you could sort of see something. And two or three you could actually see something and make out what it was.
In an interview in the brochure, the interviewer several times asked about ...you know..what about the fact that if you choose the wrong parameters on the camera you'll get a totally over- or under-exposed photo at worse and at best something barely worth seeing and she kept answering "I'm just not concerned about that."
It was fun watching people go through the exhibit. Most were either verbally or nonverbally uttering the word "Bullsh*t." But a few had there art "game" faces on. Stopping for more than a second or two to study a pitch black photograph or a greyish rectangle in a frame (beautifully matted, by the way.)
It got a positive review in the Memphis paper. I wish I had that review.
My take: L.E.'s story is fine, gives a good impression of the whistle and makes a fun little read. However, I see no reason why Jessie should feel her reviews are worse.
/Jens
PS: Normally I like beer too, but just this morning I, er ... don't.
To all reviewers, past, present, and future, I apologize for labelling L.E. McCullough's recent review of the Burke Aluminum D as "The Best Review Ever Written." This was obviously a value judgement, which, as a liberal, I try to avoid.
Since I have written reviews, I apologize to myself.
On behalf of myself, I tell my other self, "No, no, Dale. Please, no apology is necessary."
But I press further, "No I really feel that I stepped over the line on that one, Dale." I blush in shame and look at the bricks on the sidewalk near our table at a cafe in Geneva at which I have hastily scheduled our lunch. "I have wronged you. I think we all know that your reviews are disorganized and that your enthusiasm for whistles in general make you a less than an ideal reviewer, but I have wronged you nonetheless."
"Nonsense," I protest, forgetting momentarily which Dale I am. "It is because of the faultiness and, well, laziness of your recent...I'm sorry...MY recent reviews that you owe me no apology. Now, Jessie...that's a another matter, you do owe her an apology even though she has already said that L.E.'s reviews kick her reviews' asses."
"Yes," I say, joining with my line of reasoning. "She is probably just saying that out of false sense of modesty. Let's apologize to her."
"I think we already have."
"Yeah, but in person."
"Right! Why isn't she here with us in Geneva?"
"I don't know, did you invite her?"
"Invite her? I thought YOU invited her."
"Oh, I WAS supposed to invite her. Let me extend to you my apology."
"Nonsense! Being you, I should have known you had failed to invite her even though I reminded you countless times."
Our conversation is then interrupted by several fellow cafe patrons throwing bits of bread at us and cursing in Swedish, which we don't speak, or comprehend.
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
