Klarinet Archive - Posting 000154.txt from 1999/06

From: GTGallant@-----.com
Subj: Re: [kl] Standing is bad (further flame bait)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:24:03 -0400

In a message dated 99-06-03 01:49:57 EDT, you write:

<< Hey, after hearing Brahms, Weber, Schumann, Rossini, Bassi, etc a
> million times, I expect some excitement to come from the performer!

You must have gone to the wrong auditorium. You should have bought a
ticket to the ballet.>>

I don't get this statement. Does it mean performances of these works should
not be exciting? Please explain.

<<Then you haven't seen enough sitting players. Or, are you in fact
referring to such boring, sheepish players with horrible stage presence as
Marcellus, Gigliotti, Wright, etc.>>

No. I wasn't aware any of those players sat while playing. Other than
Wright, I'm not supprised Marcellus and Gigliotti sat when playing a recital.
You cannot compare (maybe minus Wright) orchestra players with soloists.
Also, wouldn't you agree that the above mentioned players are/were more
conservative and stiff compared to a great soloist, such as Neidich,
Stolzman, etc?
My point is that I expect to see some excitement generated from the soloist,
if a solo recital is being played. Let me restate that I think it's
possibile to play with excitement while sitting. That said, based on my
experience, the better (in all areas) peformers always stood. Standing may
say something about the player's personality and style, as sitting does. If
you place no importance on stage presence, style, and showmanship, then the
above does not apply to you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org