New

Yes, it would be a good idea to back up your statement with reasons. Just remember to drain the sand well, we wouldn't want the sugar plum fairy coming along and knocking it down.

Hi Kev! Sorry, I almost missed your posting! Bavouzet is wonderful! I love his Bartok concertos album. I recently purchased a newish one with Debussy, Ravel, etc. on Chandos...not quite as enthralled with that album (believe that it was the Ravel that I wasn't as keen on). I do want to check out at least some of his solo piano Debussy volumes though. I've heard good things about his Haydn sonatas by another forum friend too who has some of them.

What is "The Week" by the way?

Hope to get back to some more listening soon (been watching a lot of tennis being played and broadcast from across the pond. ;-) ).

Best, P.

(i) It's raining and I don't fancy watching a spoilt Scottish brat make a fool of himself.
(ii) I think you have too much love of 'the rules', by all means learn the rules but then go out and break them, please. The rules are historical, they weren't even the rules until they became the rules, the rules are constantly changing, they are more like guidelines anyway.
(iii) Clementi was someone who understood the rules, Beethoven was someone who understood music.
(iv) What a great idea, education and principles (like the rules) should be in a state of constant flux.
(v) Has your house fallen down yet?

As rain started to pour over the Wimbledon Park arena, I will spare you a few minutes to finish this debate in which concern of quality has been very one-sided.

(i) It's sunny in Oxfordshire although getting cloudy. 

(ii) You've watched to many movies and heard to many sayings ''rules are there to be broken''. Your statement is flawed itself- by saying 'rules' that make up music, you are contradicting the essential laws that pertrain sound, rhythm and sileence of classical music in addition to overhelming stubbornness.

(iii) You do realize that Beethoven learned the sonata form and continued to learn its boundaries from Clementi. The statement ''Clementi was someone who understood the rules'' is absolutely ludicrous, so did Beethoven.

(iv) Mutual agreement on the constant review of education is a must. However, shaking pivotal principles of approach is not how it starts. If you do not follow the basic of valid reasoning you are one of those ''I understand what I am talking although I do not know what it means''. Principles are not rules.

(v) Fake confidence, impeded efforts and arrogant neglect will not get you anywhere - it is a pity to see an individual wasting his or her intellect on mere conconctions of few initial instances.

Thank you. I hope to have see some great discussions and ingeniuos views on classical music.

Daniel

Edit: his or her

Do you actually read what you type in?

You are trying to cling on words though failed miserably, again. What you should do is attack an argument or outline impediments in the ideas, again. You were the one to say 'rules' should be broken, I said you will contradict the laws that petrain sound, rhythm and silence of classical music. Not all rules are laws, some rules are irrelevant to the nature of the laws, they are established during activity modifications. Different interactions of rules make up laws, and others displace them. Rules that are ingrained in the aforementioned components cannot be broken. Quote me where I said music is not science? 'To hear what I want to hear' example. I said music is fundamentally about induction and subjectivity, not all about them.  Music is not science nor art, trumpeting a single role will lead to stupid excuberance. By the way, you surely seem to be unaware of countless layers of subjectivity in science as well. Surely you can try attacking the laws with deductivity in music though I am not sure whether you, Madam, or anyone else can do it in single file. Oh well, a young and immature wolf lost the path to the house.

Oh sweet Mother of God. I am not fully sure that you've read what you typed in there.

If you had atleast a tad of competence, you should already see that this debate requires a lot more mediums to enable to assert our strong views about the topic. Acknowledgement and possible change of the reference points would help though you will still probably assert your profound truthfulness in the next post. 

That being said, I will check this thread next week. As for now, one of the best matches of the year is on air.

Hi Petra, I'm glad that you enjoyed the tennis - now that there's a roof on centre court, there are no frustrating interruptions because of the rain.

The Week is a news, arts, opinion etc. media digest magazine.  There are versions for the USA, UK, Australia (maybe more).

I'm not sure of the significance, if any, that Bavouzet was mentioned there.  The magazine will have readers who don't buy music magazines but might  buy the Bavouzet CD because it was recommended there I suppose.  Anyway, I found it refreshing to read something in the media about Bavouzet instead of Lang Lang.

They are your assumptions to the words you've read, not mine. Although my apologies are needed for opening room for interpretation as I had assumed elaborations will not be needed to prove my point. 

For individuals who still didn't understand: Music is not science nor art, it's both of them at any particular moment of time. Henceforth, you cannot call music 'only' as a matter of science nor exactly an act of 'art'. 

Kapish?

P.S. All the people who had a chance to participate in the opening night of BBC Proms are very lucky, the atmosphere induced by Elgar (best live rendition I've ever heard) must have been truly amazing.