From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: Parkening
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:33:52 GMT



A grab bag of critcisms of Parkening deleted. 
Then sjm writes:


>>The amount of hubris in these and other posts is quite amusing.  I
>>venture that NOT ONE reader of this group has one-tenth the level
>>of proficiency that Parkening does.  "Second rate" indeed. 

Now what do you define as hubris? As one of the above I take some (small)
offense at this and fear you have completely missed the point.
Yes indeed I do not have anywhere near the proficiency with the instrument
that Parkening has. I never claimed otherwise, and nor did anybody else
claim to have his ability. The fact that I cannot play as well as 
Parkening has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
>>The above types of comments are typical of a bunch of classical snobby
>>types, who, if EVERY detail isn't in its own proper box is labeled
>>with terms like "second rate" and so forth.  If you wish to hear perfection,
>>get a sequencer.  Only a machine will give you the perfection you are looking
>>for.  Only a machine should.  The "naily" bit and low volume is part of an
>>individual's style.  I have  sequences of the Paganinni Caprices that are
>>absolutely note perfect.  Tempi are rock solid.  Dynamics are whatever
>>you wish.  Absolutely perfect intonation.  The machine NEVER makes a mistake.
>>Problem is the computer has no soul.  All the things people criticise
>>Parkening for amount to soul.

The above paragraph indicates you didn't bother to actually read what was 
written. Nobody, and certainly not me, has criticised Parkening for his
technical execution of the music. People have criticised various aspects 
of his playing, but on the whole I think it is recognised that he is a
fine player. How high one rates him is a matter of opinion. No, my 
criticism of Parkening and for that matter Yepes, Lagoya and others is
over choice of repetoire. That is what I meant by saying he represented the
worst aspects of the Segovia tradition. I have a review of a Parkening
concert from 1989 and it illustrates my point perfectly. He played some
bits of Bach (a dog's breakfast according to the reviewer) a mishmash 
of Villa-Lobos. A Tarrega Lollipop, a bit of Albeniz. Each individual piece
was apparently executed well and with real musicality. What I, and the
reviewer object to, is the lack of musical intelligence in the choice of
the programme. If you went to hear Alfred Brendel or Vladimir Ashkenazy
in concert, how would you react if they played a few bits of the Diabelli
Variations and the last movement of the Appassionata? You would be disgusted.
Of course great musicians like Brendel and Ashkenazy would NEVER do that.
So why does Parkening feel that playing a prelude from a Bach lute suite,
followed by a gavotte from another and a courante from a cello suite is
musically valid. In my view that was the worst thing about Segovia. He
recorded only HALF Ponce's variations on La Follia! He never recorded or
played a full Bach suite. He did not play all the Preludes of Villa Lobos.
I cannot see that this is a valid approach musically. Perhaps in the era 
that gave birth to Segovia it was acceptable, but for Parkening to continue
this crass practice marks him in my opinion as second rate. I cannot see
how my expressing this opinion is even remotely a mark of hubris. Am I 
not allowed to have opinions on the musicians I hear? Keep in mind that "second rate "means 
that I do not place Parkening in the front rank of guitarists, nothing more.
yes he can play, I never said otherwise, but his complete lack of imagination
in his choice of repetoire (has Parkening ever played the Nocturnal After
John Dowland, or any Takemitsu or Henze or Donatoni or Nono or Tippet,
or Berio or........any one will do) marks him as a guitarist who is treading
water. Look at his latest CD. He recorded Castles of Spain by Torroba and 
a few other pieces from the Segovian repetoire. (Well the disc is called a
"Tribute to Segovia"). I believe that for the guitar to grow and thrive it
needs its top players to introduce the public to great music from the 
repetoire. Other guitarists are doing this admirably. Bream and Williams
have been doing it for years. Players from the following generations,
like Mikulka, Kraft, Tannebaum, Evers, Fernandez, Starobin, Hall, Kotzia
have been introducing audiences to a wider and wider repetoire. Not just 
new music, but rarely performed music from previous centuries. As I said
in the original post, the guitar does not *need* another recording of 
Asturias or Recuerdos de la Alahambra. Yet that is what Parkening,
Yepes, Lagoya even Pepe Romero keep giving us. That is my criticism.
If you think this hubris, then you must have a different dictionary to me.

Mark C.
 

>>Finally, the fact that people are "not so good as Parkening" takes away any
>>credibility that their criticism may have.

I don't even know what this statement means as sentence in English.
Assuming you mean that because the critics are not as good as Parkening
and therefore their criticisms are invalid, then I must say that is an
utterly vacuous claim. If you go to a concert and the players are awful,
but you can't even play the instruments they played, does this mean that 
you are not allowed to complain that the concert was awful? 

Finally, the fact that you do not even seem to be aware of what the original 
critics were getting at, takes away the credibilty of your criticisms.

>>sjm