Discussion:
WTC - The "best" version?
(too old to reply)
Edward
2003-08-18 14:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).

TIA

Edward
Peter T. Daniels
2003-08-18 15:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
Did the ng somehow fail to post the ritual "there is no such thing as
THE BEST version of anything"? (Unless, of course, only a single version
has ever been made.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Dr.Matt
2003-08-18 22:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
Did the ng somehow fail to post the ritual "there is no such thing as
THE BEST version of anything"? (Unless, of course, only a single version
has ever been made.)
Now, now, Peter! You know very well that such a statement is just
intellectual irresponsibility and laziness. It is perfectly possible to
establish what the "best version" is--all you have to do is carefully set
out your selection criteria first. Of course, no one on this newsgroup ever
does this, since it might require a little mental effort, so I will just go
with the flow here. I like the version composed by J. S. Bach. Anyone have
an opposing view?
Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
will really switch you on.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-08-18 23:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
Did the ng somehow fail to post the ritual "there is no such thing as
THE BEST version of anything"? (Unless, of course, only a single version
has ever been made.)
Now, now, Peter! You know very well that such a statement is just
intellectual irresponsibility and laziness. It is perfectly possible to
establish what the "best version" is--all you have to do is carefully set
out your selection criteria first. Of course, no one on this newsgroup ever
does this, since it might require a little mental effort, so I will just go
with the flow here. I like the version composed by J. S. Bach. Anyone have
an opposing view?
Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
will really switch you on.
Aw, Dr Matt! I was counting on you to nominate Lamonte Young's version!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnakat."
Richard Schultz
2003-08-19 04:43:56 UTC
Permalink
In rec.music.classical Dr.Matt <***@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:

: Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
: will really switch you on.

Wasn't "Switched-On Bach" done by Walter Carlos?

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Alan Young
2003-08-19 05:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
: will really switch you on.
Wasn't "Switched-On Bach" done by Walter Carlos?
Yes, but they are the same person.
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
Peter T. Daniels
2003-08-19 11:18:50 UTC
Permalink
:> : Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
:> : will really switch you on.
:>
:> Wasn't "Switched-On Bach" done by Walter Carlos?
: Yes, but they are the same person.
Don't tell anyone, but I wouldn't have asked the question if I didn't know
that. The question was when "W. Carlos" (as the Columbia Record Club used
to refer to him/her) did his/her version. I had thought that the record
was done before the operation.
The three Bach albums have been repackaged in a box, by Wendy.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Dr.Matt
2003-08-21 10:27:37 UTC
Permalink
:> : Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
:> : will really switch you on.
:>
:> Wasn't "Switched-On Bach" done by Walter Carlos?
: Yes, but they are the same person.
Don't tell anyone, but I wouldn't have asked the question if I didn't know
that. The question was when "W. Carlos" (as the Columbia Record Club used
to refer to him/her) did his/her version. I had thought that the record
was done before the operation.
Duh, but the reissues are attributed to the later name.
There's no issue here, Richard is just pretending to know something
that the rest of the posters here don't.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Richard Schultz
2003-08-24 04:59:25 UTC
Permalink
In rec.music.classical Dr.Matt <***@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:

:>Don't tell anyone, but I wouldn't have asked the question if I didn't know
:>that. The question was when "W. Carlos" (as the Columbia Record Club used
:>to refer to him/her) did his/her version. I had thought that the record
:>was done before the operation.
:
: Duh, but the reissues are attributed to the later name.

I did not know that until you just told me. As I said, Columbia used to
fudge the matter by attributing it to "W. Carlos."

: There's no issue here, Richard is just pretending to know something
: that the rest of the posters here don't.

Well, I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but at least I know how
to type the words "yes" and "no" -- a talent that seems thus far to have
eluded you.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Gary L.
2003-08-19 06:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: Bach is okay, Gould's version is kinda creative, and Wendy Carlos's version
: will really switch you on.
Wasn't "Switched-On Bach" done by Walter Carlos?
"Walter" had a sex change operation and became "Wendy." No joke.
Apparently she is rather sensitive to public discussion of the issue:

http://www.wendycarlos.com/

From 1998:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=73

- -
Gary L.
Reply to the newsgroup only
Risto Karttunen
2003-08-18 17:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"?
It certainly is one of the best in its own idiomatic way (note: there
is a "ma" in the middle of that word). It is up to you to decide, what
is the best for you. Perhaps it is Gould this year, Richter the next
etc.

--
risto
Larry Davis
2003-08-18 20:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Well, for the whole thing, I think Edwin Fischer's version is
commendable. Some people I know who like Glen Gould think his earlier
version is better than his later one. Considering the course of his
life, that seems certainly possible.

There was an entire article on this subject in IPQ a couple of years
ago that reviewed all the known complete recordings.

Larry Davis
Atlanta, GA
gregpresley
2003-08-18 19:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Best versions are a matter of taste. I think Rosalyn Tureck has recorded
these books more than once, and she was a very intelligent interpreter - as
of course Gould was. What do I like in a Bach interpretation? A clear
balance of parts ( a performer who has decided at every moment which voice
he/she would like to come to the forefront), consistency of articulation
(ie, if notes 3 4 and 5 of a fugue theme are performed detached at the first
entrance, they ought to be performed detached at every entrance), awareness
of points of harmonic repose which give the illusion of breathing, so that
the music does not sound too busy and frantic, a good use of "natural"
dynamics (ie when the music rises in pitch it gets slightly louder, when it
falls, it gets slightly softer), and a touch of terrace dynamics when
sequences etc call for that. Since the vast majority of Bach's instrumental
music has some pre-classic dance as its origin or underlying rhythm, a
performer who understands how to make the music show its dance-lilt is also
always appreciated.
When all of these things are given attention, Bach's music plays itself,
in a way, and the personality of the perfomer matters less than in a Chopin
interpretation.
Christof Pflumm
2003-08-19 11:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by gregpresley
Best versions are a matter of taste. I think Rosalyn Tureck has recorded
these books more than once,
Do you know if recordings of the WTC by Tureck are available in decent
quality? I listened to a recording once, and found the playing very
beautiful. But the sound quality was so horrible I didn't buy it.

Bye,
Christof
Michael Sayers
2003-08-18 19:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
The best recording of the opening prelude and fugue is that of
Ferruccio Busoni's, out on the Pearl Label.


Michael Sayers
http://www.geocities.com/mjsayers
Alan Young
2003-08-18 19:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
No one can interpret Bach on piano as well as Paul Badura-Skoda.
Unfortunately, all his Bach recordings are out of print, AFAIK.
James Lockhead
2003-08-19 16:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
No one can interpret Bach on piano as well as Paul Badura-Skoda.
Unfortunately, all his Bach recordings are out of print, AFAIK.
What does it say about the nature of these newsgroups that there is
such an overwhelming consensus in favour of Bach on the piano? For my
tastes, The impossibility of dynamic variation on the harpsichord is
one of the factors that in the best hands can enable the music to
attain an awe-inspiring, otherworldly quality, in which the
articulative, agogic and other rhythmic factors are brought to the
fore in a much more penetrating manner. Dynamic variation in this
case only dissipates the intensity (think similarly of how Feldman's
music would lose so much if played with a wide dynamic range).

Bach's music is of course playable on a wide range of instruments
(though certainly the range he perceived couldn't possibly have
included something like the modern Steinway), unlike Rameau, Couperin,
Purcell, Scarlatti, Frescobaldi, etc., etc., which to my ears are
utterly bound up with the particular timbral characteristics of the
instruments written for (as is Mozart!). But no-one, in my opinion,
playing Bach on the modern piano can match the visionary and
infinitely complex range of expression, sometimes austere, sometimes
dark, at other times playful and joyous, that I hear in Andreas Staier
playing the Partitas, or Gustav Leonhardt playing the French and
English Suites.

(As for WTC on the harpsichord, I'll post on here on a later date when
I've heard more recordings! - but see the ongoing thread about this on
rec.music.classical.recordings).

James
Alan Young
2003-08-20 01:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Lockhead
What does it say about the nature of these newsgroups that there is
such an overwhelming consensus in favour of Bach on the piano?
You seem to have joined this thread "in progress". No such consensus can be
inferred from a
discussion that began from a comparison of Glenn Gould and Walter
Gieseking, neither of whom, to
my sure and certain knowledge, ever recorded the WTC on anything except the
(modern) piano.
No, but I'm referring to the general consensus I find around these newsgroups.
On the piano ng, you expect people to be interested in piano music,
rather than harpsichord music. More to the point, the original poster
*specifically* said he was interested in *piano* interpretations; if
someone were inquiring about harpsichord performance, it would be a
different thread, and it would aptly have been cross-posted to
r.m.early, rather than r.m.m.piano.

Indeed, there is much to be said in favor of Bach on harpsichord, but
you haven't said any of it.

So, to answer your question, what it says about these newsgroups is
that *most* posters are able to read and to stay on topic.

Have a nice day.
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
James Lockhead
2003-08-20 14:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by James Lockhead
What does it say about the nature of these newsgroups that there is
such an overwhelming consensus in favour of Bach on the piano?
You seem to have joined this thread "in progress". No such consensus can be
inferred from a
discussion that began from a comparison of Glenn Gould and Walter
Gieseking, neither of whom, to
my sure and certain knowledge, ever recorded the WTC on anything except the
(modern) piano.
No, but I'm referring to the general consensus I find around these newsgroups.
On the piano ng, you expect people to be interested in piano music,
rather than harpsichord music. More to the point, the original poster
*specifically* said he was interested in *piano* interpretations; if
someone were inquiring about harpsichord performance, it would be a
different thread, and it would aptly have been cross-posted to
r.m.early, rather than r.m.m.piano.
Indeed, there is much to be said in favor of Bach on harpsichord, but
you haven't said any of it.
So, to answer your question, what it says about these newsgroups is
that *most* posters are able to read and to stay on topic.
Have a nice day.
I actually read this thread on r.m.classical rather than r.m.m.piano -
you might note that it's posted on two different groups. Anyhow,
wasn't referring just to this thread, to a general consensus around
the different newsgroups.
Jerry Kohl
2003-08-20 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Lockhead
Post by Alan Young
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
No one can interpret Bach on piano as well as Paul Badura-Skoda.
Unfortunately, all his Bach recordings are out of print, AFAIK.
What does it say about the nature of these newsgroups that there is
such an overwhelming consensus in favour of Bach on the piano?
You seem to have joined this thread "in progress". No such consensus can be inferred from a
discussion that began from a comparison of Glenn Gould and Walter Gieseking, neither of whom, to
my sure and certain knowledge, ever recorded the WTC on anything except the (modern) piano.
No, but I'm referring to the general consensus I find around these newsgroups.
Sometimes we find what we hope to find. I haven't noticed any such consensus; in fact, quite the
opposite seems to me to be the case. But then, my "these newsgroups" may not be the same as your
"these newsgroups".

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnakat."
Dr.Matt
2003-08-21 10:19:47 UTC
Permalink
I prefer Bach on the sorts of instruments Bach wrote for, but
Bach on the piano can still be an interesting experience.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
f***@m0x0.conservatory.com
2003-08-18 20:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Apparently you aren't going to get a straight answer re WTC best ed. So I
will give you one. The Alfred Palmer is absolutely the best. A second is
Henle.
Best one for me was a Konemann Budapest Urtext edition. Mostly because
it was $2.00 at a used bookstore, which represented an embarrassingly
large percentage of my net worth at the time.
--
Richard Schultz
2003-08-19 04:45:59 UTC
Permalink
In rec.music.classical ***@m0x0.conservatory.com wrote:
: In article <ov90b.17480$***@twister.socal.rr.com>,
: Jim Trousdale <***@san.rr.com> wrote:

:>Apparently you aren't going to get a straight answer re WTC best ed. So I
:>will give you one. The Alfred Palmer is absolutely the best. A second is
:>Henle.

: Best one for me was a Konemann Budapest Urtext edition. Mostly because
: it was $2.00 at a used bookstore, which represented an embarrassingly
: large percentage of my net worth at the time.

Another cheap but worthwhile edition is the old Bischoff edition, which
was (and perhaps still is) available cheaply from Kalmus. In traditional
German style, he has a bazillion footnotes recording every significant
variant in all of the early manuscripts that he could get his hands on. I
believe that two world wars have made some of those manuscripts "no longer
available."

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Christopher Eva
2003-08-19 13:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
Sounds to me like you want Edwin Fischer's set, reissued not so long
ago on Naxos. Here is part of the review of the reissue in Gramophone
magazine:

"Edwin Fischer's 1933-36 HMV set of Bach's 48 was the first recording
by a pianist of the set, and it remains the finest of all. Fischer
might well have agreed with Andras Schiff that Bach is the ‘most
romantic of all composers', for his superfine musicianship seems to
live and breathe in another world, ether or ambience. His sonority is
as ravishing as it is apt, never beautiful for its own sake, and
graced with a pedal technique so subtle that it results in a light and
shade, a subdued sparkle or pointed sense of repartee that eludes
lesser artists. Again, no matter what complexity Bach throws at him,
Fischer resolves it with a disarming poise and limpidity, qualities as
natural as they are profound."

Christopher Eva
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-25 21:07:45 UTC
Permalink
I don't know if it constitutes the "best," but I like pianist
Eunice Norton's 1968 recording of the WTC, as well as her
Goldberg Variations and Partitas. She recorded "live"
performances of them, which you can hear samples of at
http://www.norvardrecordings.com/.

Not the best sound quality typically, but the performances are
intensely vital and engaging, and particularly unique among the
recorded discography of this music because of her
not-necessarily-Baroque approach; she's commented that "he is too
big to fit on one such shelf of a category, having aspects of the
Romantic, Gothic, and Classical to his content and manner, as
well as the Baroque".

On the other hand, her style with this music also avoids
utilizing overly colorful dynamics and exaggeratedly detached
playing, so one could see her as an early advocate of the
principles which later became the "HIP" movement. She won the
1927 London Bach Prize, and as a pianist believes that Bach's
music needs to be protected from inappropriate sound potentials
when being played on the modern piano, to give another example of
her thinking about this music.

Incidentally, I produced these recordings for Norvard, but am no
longer associated with the label.

regards,

Edward
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my
avowed
Post by Edward
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC.
Anyone any
Post by Edward
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and
Three Part
Post by Edward
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I
want a
Post by Edward
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a
Baroque
Post by Edward
snob).
john grant
2003-08-27 00:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Listening to the Norton samples provided at the site mentioned below.
Amazingly modern approach considering the date of the recordings. The
Prelude 5 bk 1 is in fact the Prelude from bk 2. In any case, very
interesting stuff. Re Gould's WTC, I would leave that avowedly analytical
approach for a later purchase and, again, start with Richter or Feinberg,
moving on from there to the early Demus, if you can find it. Best RECENT
recording: Schepkin. Another not well-known but stunning recording of Book
1 is by the English pianist, Julia Cload.

J. Grant
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
I don't know if it constitutes the "best," but I like pianist
Eunice Norton's 1968 recording of the WTC, as well as her
Goldberg Variations and Partitas. She recorded "live"
performances of them, which you can hear samples of at
http://www.norvardrecordings.com/.
Not the best sound quality typically, but the performances are
intensely vital and engaging, and particularly unique among the
recorded discography of this music because of her
not-necessarily-Baroque approach; she's commented that "he is too
big to fit on one such shelf of a category, having aspects of the
Romantic, Gothic, and Classical to his content and manner, as
well as the Baroque".
On the other hand, her style with this music also avoids
utilizing overly colorful dynamics and exaggeratedly detached
playing, so one could see her as an early advocate of the
principles which later became the "HIP" movement. She won the
1927 London Bach Prize, and as a pianist believes that Bach's
music needs to be protected from inappropriate sound potentials
when being played on the modern piano, to give another example of
her thinking about this music.
Incidentally, I produced these recordings for Norvard, but am no
longer associated with the label.
regards,
Edward
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my
avowed
Post by Edward
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC.
Anyone any
Post by Edward
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and
Three Part
Post by Edward
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I
want a
Post by Edward
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a
Baroque
Post by Edward
snob).
get real
2003-08-29 14:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Peter T. Daniels
2003-08-29 22:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
get real
2003-08-29 23:23:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.

P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
get real
2003-08-30 12:30:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
get real
2003-08-30 15:54:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Peter T. Daniels
2003-08-30 22:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. You made more sense there.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
john grant
2003-08-31 00:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC.
Anyone any
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by get real
Post by get real
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. You made more sense there.
--
Returning to the point at issue. Richter (S.) playing Book 1 WTC is a
"best" recording. Feinburg Book 2; Demus 1 and 2 if you can find it; also
"best" recordings. Good very recent recordings: Schepkin and Julia Cload.

J. G.
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html
john grant
2003-09-01 23:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Thank you!

J. G.
I listened to some of your WTC. Your love of Bach is evident in your
playing.
Post by john grant
J. G.
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html
get real
2003-08-31 14:17:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:42:31 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. You made more sense there.
Allow me to explain
Post by Peter T. Daniels
My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread
The thread originator specifically asked about the best version on
piano, therefore your opinion about the best version being on
something other than piano is irrelevant.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
.your presentation of it
Post by get real
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences.
You were unable to perceive that when I said I had recently heard
Richter, it was obvious that that meant S. Richter (given the thread
was about piano) and that it was on recording.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
As far as your opinion, I
Post by get real
respectfully disagree.
I do not agree that only non-sensible people can believe that a
version of WTC on piano can be the best one. I know many sensible
people who feel that a piano, in the proper hands, brings the music to
life better than any other instrument. I share this belief.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Go tinkle.
Go play your harpsichord.

Get it now?
Peter T. Daniels
2003-08-31 22:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:42:31 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. You made more sense there.
Allow me to explain
Post by Peter T. Daniels
My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread
The thread originator specifically asked about the best version on
piano, therefore your opinion about the best version being on
something other than piano is irrelevant.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
.your presentation of it
Post by get real
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences.
You were unable to perceive that when I said I had recently heard
Richter, it was obvious that that meant S. Richter (given the thread
was about piano) and that it was on recording.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
As far as your opinion, I
Post by get real
respectfully disagree.
I do not agree that only non-sensible people can believe that a
version of WTC on piano can be the best one. I know many sensible
people who feel that a piano, in the proper hands, brings the music to
life better than any other instrument. I share this belief.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Go tinkle.
Go play your harpsichord.
Get it now?
I hate dishonesty. I hate the fact that you made it look as though I
wrote "Go tinkle." You are certainly no better, and perhaps worse, than
Michael Sayers.

And IF O.P. was asking for "the 'best' version ON PIANO," they didn't do
so in this newsgroup. Perhaps someone crossposted the thread after
deleting any such detail. O.P. -- someone called "Edward" -- asked for
BOTH "the 'best'" AND a piano version, fully recognizing that the two
were not necessarily realized in the same recording.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
get real
2003-08-31 23:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:32:40 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:42:31 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:04:59 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:41:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by get real
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:36:03 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
Post by Edward
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
I recently heard Richter play part of a French suite. It was sublime.
Try his WTC.
Both Sviatoslav and Karl died quite a few years ago.
Thanks for that tidbit of biographical trivia. Don't quite see how
it's relevant, but thanks just the same. Perhaps you thought I heard
him live. No, not so lucky, just on a friend's cd.
P.S. Karl, to the best of my knowledge, never played Bach on the
piano.
You neither said it was on piano nor identified your player.
Some readers will have read the original post of the thread, which
clearly inquires about a "version on piano", and some will not. Some
readers, when the original poster says that he "has Gould" ,
understand that he means he has the Gould recording and not Mr. Gould,
and some don't. And finally, some readers, when they read that I
"recently heard Richter", will assume that it was on a recording and,
for the reason mentioned above, that it was Sviatoslav, and some
won't. Language is funny that way.
And sensible people will understand that no version on piano can be the
"best" version.
You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread, and your presentation of it
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences. As far as your opinion, I
respectfully disagree. Go tinkle.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. You made more sense there.
Allow me to explain
Post by Peter T. Daniels
My opinion is that your
opinion is irrelevant to the thread
The thread originator specifically asked about the best version on
piano, therefore your opinion about the best version being on
something other than piano is irrelevant.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
.your presentation of it
Post by get real
serves only as an attempt to cover your apparent inability to grasp
the meaning of simple sentences.
You were unable to perceive that when I said I had recently heard
Richter, it was obvious that that meant S. Richter (given the thread
was about piano) and that it was on recording.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
As far as your opinion, I
Post by get real
respectfully disagree.
I do not agree that only non-sensible people can believe that a
version of WTC on piano can be the best one. I know many sensible
people who feel that a piano, in the proper hands, brings the music to
life better than any other instrument. I share this belief.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Go tinkle.
Go play your harpsichord.
Get it now?
I hate dishonesty. I hate the fact that you made it look as though I
wrote "Go tinkle."
Pete, your hatred is actually the frustration caused by Alzheimers. If
you think that the above is an attempt to make it look like you wrote
"go tinkle", you are completely unable to comprehend usenet notation.
Allow me to explain. The greater-than sign (>) indicates past
authorship. As discussions progress, one more of these signs is
successively added to each past post which is retained. Thus, when I
write "allow me to explain", it is clear that I am explaining MY
statements (since you stated that you thought I was making no sense),
to which I add a > to indicate that they are from a previous post,
not YOUR statements. After each statement OF MINE appears MY
explanation OF IT, with no >. Get it now? Listen, Pete, seriously,
are you, like, 85 years old and trying to keep up?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are certainly no better, and perhaps worse, than
Michael Sayers.
Ahem, perhaps 90? 95 maybe?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And IF O.P. was asking for "the 'best' version ON PIANO," they didn't do
so in this newsgroup.
Ahem again. Yes, he did. The post OF MINE to which you stupidly
replied wondering whether I had recently heard a man who has been dead
for six years playing live, contained the following, which was that to
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Another thread on Walter Giesking has somewhat pre-empted my avowed
intent to determine the best version available of the WTC. Anyone any
ideas? I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two and Three Part
Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the "best"? I want a
version on piano, and I'm not too fussed if the articulation is
inaccurate provided that the heart is right (i.e. I'm not a Baroque
snob).
TIA
Edward
Do you see the words " I have Gould on the Goldberg Variations and Two
and Three Part Inventions, but wonder if his version of WTC is the
"best"? I want a version on piano", Pete? Tell me, do ya see 'em?
Look closely, and take special note ot "I WANT A VERSION ON PIANO".
Are we together on this one, Pete? Do you need help with this
sentence, too? Just ask me, I will be only too happy to oblige.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Perhaps someone crossposted the thread after
deleting any such detail. O.P. -- someone called "Edward" -- asked for
BOTH "the 'best'" AND a piano version, fully recognizing that the two
were not necessarily realized in the same recording.
Pete, I think you should turn off the computer and go watch your
shows.
get real
2003-09-01 14:07:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:03:56 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Who is this "Pete" you're talking to, liar?
The ">" marks are inserted by the software. If you want to pretend to be
software, put in the correct number of ">"s.
Go back to heckling Michael Sayers. It's more entertaining and even more
pointless.
I see, so you were confused because you thought there were not "the
correct number" of >'s and that this would confuse others as it
confused you. Listen, pete, others are not nearly so easily confused,
so you have nothing to worry about. No one will think you wrote "go
tinkle", don't worry. The reason? I say "Allow me to explain" becuase
you stated that what I wrote made no sense -- I wanted to try to make
what I wrote clearer for you. After this statement is the series of
quotes, all originating from one paragraph, between which I inserted
my explanations for you. Upon insertion of my explanatory comments,
some additional >'s were necessary to make it CLEAR to normal people.
Do you think I would want to explain what YOU wrote to YOU? Do any of
the other lines in the series make sense if ithey are misconstrued to
be of YOUR authorship? Of course not. Not only that, but the entire
intact paragraph is there to be seen by all just two lines above. You
just didn't have your thinking cap on! Now be a good boy and go back
to your shows. And if you really have to tinkle, just ask the nurse to
take you to go potty.

P.S. A person in your condition should try always to remember that
when you don't get the point of something, that does not make it
pointless.
Peter T. Daniels
2003-09-01 15:37:33 UTC
Permalink
That's why we have quotation marks, O subliterate one.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
get real
2003-09-01 16:11:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:37:33 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why we have quotation marks, O subliterate one.
I promise that the next time that I must carefully explain something
to you by pulling apart a paragraph from a past post, I will remember
that, although the intact paragraph may be just above with >'s, you
will forget the authorship of the pulled-apart text with >'s in front,
so I will take the extra time necessary to delete the >'s and to
insert "s just for you, . I try to be kind to the handicapped. Are we
friends again?
Peter T. Daniels
2003-09-01 21:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by get real
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:37:33 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why we have quotation marks, O subliterate one.
I promise that the next time that I must carefully explain something
to you by pulling apart a paragraph from a past post, I will remember
that, although the intact paragraph may be just above with >'s, you
will forget the authorship of the pulled-apart text with >'s in front,
so I will take the extra time necessary to delete the >'s and to
insert "s just for you, . I try to be kind to the handicapped. Are we
friends again?
What does "forgetting" have to do with it? I knew perfectly well that I
did not tell anyone to "go tinkle," but you made it appear that I did.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
get real
2003-09-01 22:18:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:28:25 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:37:33 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why we have quotation marks, O subliterate one.
I promise that the next time that I must carefully explain something
to you by pulling apart a paragraph from a past post, I will remember
that, although the intact paragraph may be just above with >'s, you
will forget the authorship of the pulled-apart text with >'s in front,
so I will take the extra time necessary to delete the >'s and to
insert "s just for you, . I try to be kind to the handicapped. Are we
friends again?
What does "forgetting" have to do with it? I knew perfectly well that I
did not tell anyone to "go tinkle," but you made it appear that I did.
Yes, of course I did, even though anyone silly enough to think so
would have to ignore the intact paragraph just above, which was
identical, which therefore contained the same line that worries you
so, and which was clearly written by me. Perhaps you think somehow I
manipulated that for my evil ends as well. Let me give you a piece of
advice that will keep you out of trouble: try always to remember that
a) you are an idiot, and b) most people are not idiots. If you always
keep this in mind, you will not assume that your own silly
conclusions will be drawn by others, and your way in the world will be
much easier.
Dr.Matt
2003-09-01 22:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by get real
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:37:33 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why we have quotation marks, O subliterate one.
I promise that the next time that I must carefully explain something
to you by pulling apart a paragraph from a past post, I will remember
that, although the intact paragraph may be just above with >'s, you
will forget the authorship of the pulled-apart text with >'s in front,
so I will take the extra time necessary to delete the >'s and to
insert "s just for you, . I try to be kind to the handicapped. Are we
friends again?
What does "forgetting" have to do with it? I knew perfectly well that I
did not tell anyone to "go tinkle," but you made it appear that I did.
--
Peter, go tinkle.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Peter T. Daniels
2003-09-01 21:29:00 UTC
Permalink
The ">" marks are inserted by the software.
In my day, Sonny, we put them in ourselves.
And we used hammer and chisel, and by golly, we liked it.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Loading...