Re: Best Burleske

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 18:18:45 +0000, DeepBlue wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 7:35:12 +0000, Zionazi wrote:
>

So it appears, Gould‘s Burleske
is rather not well-liked.

>
And for good reason. Can you spell
L-E-A-D-E-N ?!? He plays it like a
dirge, not like a "Burleske".

How would you know? Ever been to a burlesque Show? They’re usually not
as Angry as Richter or you are… No need to Break the Piano… the
vulgarity in this case maybe Should have a certain class? It’s Not the
Hammerklavier is it? It’s also a relaxed Atmosphere at burlesque shows
as far as i know… This is Not a Gang bang swinger Party…

>

Let me see ifI can hear this…

>
No you can't. You would have
heard it already if you could.

Maybe Richter stopped playing it because of Gould ;D

>

the Problem with Argerich imo is,
she Rushes too much,

>
How would you know? You don't
know the score, you don't play
the piano, and you have absolutely
no understanding of piano performance.

Because music is a Sensory experience you retard narcissist…

>

Similar to freire… and they‘re
both not really mischeavous in
contrast to Gould - who is also
really raw and dark…

>
And what makes you think the work
is "raw and dark" ?!?

I like it raw and dark (like Mozart‘s DG) — burlesque Shows - Good ones
- are also raw (with a certain class) and dark. I also Like Sex raw
(with a certain Class) and Dark — and since were Talking Burleske (and
parody) it seems to fit the Bill.

>
Not to mention "raw and dark" is
is inconsistent with mischievous
(note the spelling).

Not really.
Note that You’re being pedantic again.

>
BTW did you notice how slow Gould
plays it?
>
Can you spell B-U-T-C-H-E-R?

Ask your mama who let others butcher your Penis ;D

>
Time to remove the concrete from
your ears and flush all the shit
between them.

? Go listen to Shitomi Uehara

>
Ciao!