Rachmaninov – Piano Concerto No. 4 – pianist Simon Tedeschi – Sydney Symphony Orchestra

Hola a todos. Here is a splendid performance of Sergei Rachmaninov’s Piano Concerto No 4 in g minor, Op 40 (1941 Version) with pianist Simon Tedeschi and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra conducted by Benjamin Northey in the Sydney Opera House. This is a performance from 2017.

Rachmaninov’s Piano Concerto No. 4 is neglected compared to his Second and Third concertos, which are the most often performed.

Some History: The three versions of this concerto (the 1926, 1928, and 1941)

There are three versions of this concerto. There’s the original 1926 manuscript, which was not well received when it premiered. At that point, Rachmaninov decided to make some cuts in the concerto and other changes in the writing and he published that version in 1928. That version was not well received either, so apparently fed up with the whole thing at that point, Rachmaninov decided to shelve it. But fortunately for el mundo/the world, he eventually got around to working on it again and revised it. He published that final version in 1941, and that’s the version performed in the video below and the most often performed version today. I’ve heard a performance of the original manuscript and I liked it, but think I prefer the 1941 version. I read that pianist/conductor Vladimir Ashkenazy prefers the 1926 version having conducted it twice and performed it once as piano soloist.

Rachmaninov made cuts and/or revisions to some of his pieces because he wasn’t pleased with them and/or they were not well-received. In some instances he made cuts to his music because some people complained that his pieces were too long. He also made cuts to his pieces just to get them performed. He made cuts in the Third Piano Concerto. I’ve heard a recording of a cut Rachmaninov Third and I didn’t like it because I knew sections were missing. I’ve played the Third in its original form — although not with an orchestra; concerto opportunities don’t come around that often unless one has an agent and works as an international concert artist or takes part in piano competitions — so I knew that not all of the piece was there. I’m of the opinion that if one is going to perform his music, perform it as he originally wrote it, or in its final version in the case of the Piano Concerto No. 4.

What’s there to say about this performance? Well, I have nothing but positive things to say about it. Should I have the opportunity to play this concerto with an orchestra some day, I hope to play it as well! This is my favourite performance of this concerto available online at YT. Simon plays beautifully. Absolutely. He seems very relaxed and to thoroughly enjoy himself in this performance. He doesn’t seem to be the least bit nervous. I noticed he was smiling to himself while he was accompanying the orchestra with some piano texture while listening to those superb first violins who had the melody. That begins at 9.35 in the video (or you may want to start it a bit before to lead into that section). Later, listen to how he rattles off those well-drilled runs of the third movement. Very clean playing and never an overuse of pedal. Rachmaninov barely gives the pianist any break in the third movement and the orchestra is very busy as well. Superb playing all around. The Sydney Symphony Orchestra is one of the finest — a really excellent string section; they are amazing — and I enjoyed watching the conductor and the leader/concertmaster. I’ve watched this performance many times and it’s most enjoyable. It’s also extremely well recorded including the camera work which is not always the case with piano concerto performances. There was another performance on YT equally as good I would say, but that performance was removed due to the orchestra from Moscow making a copyright claim. (roll eyes; sigh). So I was very pleased when I found this outstanding performance from Simon and the Sydney SO.

By the way, the Steinway & Sons piano he’s playing is one of the finest I’ve heard. Listen to that sparkling treble register. It’s probably a Homborg Steinway, as opposed to a New York Steinway. Also, Simon and Mark (the conductor) seem to have a really good rapport which is very important in concerto performances. Simon uses tasteful rubato in places and the orchestra accompanies him accordingly.

Nice to see him avoiding the black and white performance tradition/rut of the classical music tradition by wearing a burgundy jacket (very pretty) which matches the arms of his glasses if you look closely. Chau.—el barrio rosa

A Russian Troll ? Wargasm.

Brainwashed Democratic partisans and their childish Spectator Sports’ Mentality

Hola a todos. To those who are genuinely nonpartisan, watch out! The few of you. No doubt we’re in the minority. An alert: Don’t think of being the least bit critical of the corrupt and imperialistic Democratic Party and their extremely thin-skinned, brainwashed supporters here in the US. Because if you are, you run the risk of being called, “A Russian troll” or “A Russian operative.” That’s true. That’s the childish level to which things have degraded here in The Cesspool/the shithole US and it’s what one has come to expect from brainwashed Democratic partisans with their Spectator Sports’ Mentality. I guess they’re no longer using, “You’re a (Karl) Rove Operative” and “You’re a Republican Operative.” I think they have shelved those trolling slogans. They were getting so tiresome.

The reason I bring this up is because a friend of mine was accused of being a Russian troll. He’s part of our little local group of Queers here in San Francisco. We met recently. He showed up late because he had just gotten off of a political website. He walked in and smiled and said, “I’m sorry I’m late, but I was just accused of being a Russian troll because I don’t support the Democratic Party, not that I support the Republican Party either!” We all said: You? A Russian operative? A Russian troll? I said: Have the brainwashed Democrats completely lost what little “mind” they had and all touch with reality? It would appear so. It’s really come down to that, has it?

It now comes down to this: If you don’t support the US Democratic Party, you’re a Russian troll.

He said he ignored the accusation. Good. No need to respond to nonsense. Some trashy Democrats are wallowing in a deeper cesspool than they were before.

Question: Are the childish and thin-skinned Democrats going to hate on Russia for 8 years while the orange-man child feeds his constantly angry face with “junk food” in office? Either that, or that other demented guy? I don’t agree with everything Russia does — does that even need to be said? — but I don’t hate on Russia. I don’t really give Russia that much thought to tell you the truth, but these propaganda-brainwashed Democrats are most assuredly on this anti-Russian head trip campaign. It’s ridiculous. When did Russia ever do anything to these assholes personally, or change their life or interfere with their life? They have bought into all the propaganda. As for Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 US s-election, may I remind these Democrats that the US does that all the time around the world. I’m not saying that “two wrongs make a right.” I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy. The Cesspool/the shithole US is constantly involved in everybody’s business around the world including their elections. If they don’t like who’s elected in a sovereign country, the US outright murders them (such as in: Panamá, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, many other places including the most recent attempt with their terrorist attack on Syria by the US/UK/France). I think mature people need to cease with this constant Russian-hating I see from propaganda-brainwashed Democrats. They’re pathetic. I can’t stand them. Their twisted-thinking speaks of blatant hypocrisy when the US constantly does the same thing these asshole brainwashed Democrats with their childish Spectator Sports’ Mentality are accusing Russia of doing.

When one goes on most political websites, they are usually sites on the far-right (Republican) or on the fake “progressive” side (Democrat). Based on the behaviour of most people I see these days who pretend to be on “the left,” the definition of the words “progressive” and “liberal” has changed drastically. The current definition of the word “progressive” and “liberal” seems to be limited to:

1. Hating on Republicans with every breath. (That gets old and boring since usually what someone is complaining about with Republicans can also be said about some, most or all Democrats when one is being objective. But D-partisans can’t bare to do that, because they are not objective.)

2. Refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for your own imperialistic Democratic Party’s failures, corruption and complicity with the Republicans over the years

3. Pretending to be or thinking that one is on the Left while not speaking a word of criticism about the far-right Democratic Party and its corrupt politicians, including when they serve as accomplices and essentially employees of the Republicans. Not one word of criticism of the Democrats is allow. And

4. A site that is a front for the Democratic Party at s-election time, while charading as “independent” and “progressive” 365 days a year. And where most of the readers are pro-Establishment US Oligarchy Democrats pretending to be “liberals” or “progressives,” while adamantly supporting right-wing politicians with a “D” next to their name. That’s such a glaring contradiction because someone who is genuinely on the Left and a genuine progressive would not be supporting the right-wing Democratic Party, period, which continues to move farther and farther to the right.

But that seems to be what the words “progressive” and “liberal” have been reduced to in these fascistic, Orwellian times. Nothing like their original meanings.

These days, most political sites are merely a place for the supporters of one team to hate on and complain about the other team, rather than actually trying to do anything constructive or positive aside from asking commenters to call the corporate parasites in congress who in reality don’t give a damn what any of us think to begin with! Some bloviating commenters get on these sites and write these “big and tough” comments such as “over my dead body” in response to the orange man-child “joking” talking about being in office for 16 years. I don’t think he was joking at all, and should he be in office for 16 years does that commenter plan on killing him/herself with their “over my dead body” comment?

All that most people are going to do these days is to type on their keyboard.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Recently a well-known classified advertisement website shut down all their US personal ads because of a new internet censorship law passed by the cesspool US congress. I’m not aware of any protests — not even one — against the passage of this law in the District of Columbia where the US Capitol building is located on Capitol Hill, or at la casa blanca/the white house on Pennsylvania Avenue. Other countries don’t put up with this shit. They take to the streets by the millions and millions in massive protests. Then you have the people in the US. What do they do? They sit on their ass no matter what happens, including the Queer Community. I mention them because the Queer/GTQBL community used to be a very politically activist community, but they’re now just as dead as anyone else and don’t seem to care about anything, regardless of what rights are eroded or outright removed.

But just think if millions and millions of people had inconvenienced themselves and their job(s), if they have one, inconvenienced their life and showed up in the District at the US Capitol during the workweek — not on a weekend when no one is there; why do people protest to empty buildings on weekends? — when all of these scum of the Earth Democratic and Republican politicians are there, and protested this new internet censorship law. If millions and millions of noisy people with pots and pans flooded the District and its Metro coming in from the Virginia and Maryland suburbs during the rush hours, the actions of internet censorship by this corrupt congress might have been reversed. You think? Even the US Department of inJustice opposed this law. So you know that something is terribly fucked up when the inJustice Department is opposed to this law but the US congress is for it, minus two US senators, one being Rand Paul. So why weren’t all of these “keyboard warriors” that one sees vegetating on Spectator Sports’ Mentality political websites daily hating on the Republicans — and with the other team hating on Democrats — not protesting at the US Capitol when this law (HR 1865, “FOSTA”) was passed? Hmmmmmmmmm? The law was signed by the deranged/insane orange man-child. On the article I saw about this on a so-called “progressive” site, they had 2 comments. Two. Nobody cared about it. Why? They can’t be bothered, even when it comes to sex. Because that would require actually having to do something other than sitting on their ass, and writing silly little childish one-liners about the other team every day of the week. I swear, I can’t stand Democrats. And many of these brainwashed Democratic Party “keyboard warriors” have become such rude, crude, vile, trashy people. They cannot take any criticism of their politicians. They go ballistic. I don’t know which is worse, Republicans or Democrats.

Now, for anyone who’s about to ask me: “Why weren’t you out there protesting this.” Well to begin with, I can’t fly to the District at this time. And mi amor, I’ve already put in my time years ago and over the decades doing what I’m suggesting these juvenile and silly-minded “keyboard warriors” do with their little one-liners. I’ve more than put in my time I’ll have you know. Some people have said to me — including all the people in our little group — that today I’m more a real activist here on my own site by all that I’ve written about than most or any of these “celebrity” activists one routinely sees in San Francisco and elsewhere. I hadn’t really thought that all that I’ve written about here on pink barrio and what I do here is a form of activism (and that’s not why I started mi diario/my diary/this site), but I guess it is a form of activism and I appreciate the comment. pink barrio has been around for years, so I’ve been doing activism on a nearly daily basis all that time. I doubt that most self-described “celebrity” activists can say that. I have written about how lame, in my opinion, some of these “celebrity” Queer activists are. They run from talking about some topics for fear of offending The Establishment. Or, they’re in denial about them. I can’t think of any topic I’ve run from or avoided. Looking back on what I’ve written about, I’ve pretty much covered it all and sometimes many, many times, of the topics that I have an interest in.

According to our amigo whom we now occasionally affectionally refer to as “the Russian troll,” some of these commenters say how the insane orange man-child is on his way out. (laugh). They’ve been saying that for over a year now according to him. They often engage in delusional wishful-thinking yet none of their predictions ever come true to their desired outcome. Their crystal ball seems to have been Made in China and comes without batteries. Now (Spring 2018), they’re banking on this “blue wave” that’s supposedly going to take over congress in November 2018 — according to wishful-thinking them — and “keep him in check until 2020″ they claim. Ha! They might want to read this, although they’re not big on letting facts get in their way: Democrats’ midterm election advantage shrinks in poll. In reality, if anything, the Democrats will give him anything he wants as they did here: “Democrats just handed Tr**p more domestic surveillance powers. They should know better.” I should also point out that they’ve banked on a similar “blue wave” in the past and on the odd occasion that they got a few more seats in the House and/or Senate these brainwashed Democrats jumped up and down in premature celebration. I remember telling them: Your celebration is premature because nothing is going to change; you’re engaging in your usual dreamy wishful-thinking once again. And nothing did change, except for the worst. But they didn’t want to hear that.

As I’ve often said since 2000, the Democrats could have every seat in the House and Senate (and White House) and the status quo would continue because the Democrats and Republicans work for the same people, and not for We, The People.

Remember when they said that Obama was going to “go after Bush” after he got in office? Some of us thought that suspect too. Well, the opposite happened. Obama greatly expanded on the illegitimate Bush regime’s neocon agenda and wasn’t about to “go after Bush” in part because he would then have to go after himself too. Instead, Obama said: We must look forward, not backwards. From pictures I’ve seen of them together which one can look at here, the Obamas look like they’re best of friend with George W Bush and Laura, and that’s particularly the case with Michelle and George with their hand-holding and besos/kisses. What is that about? Our amigo pointed this out in one of his comments and gave the same link I’m giving here. The response to that from brainwashed Democrats was mostly silence. One person trolled him. Another person engaged in excuse-making for Obama and referring to Obama as “flawed.” Our amigo responded by saying: “Flawed? Why sanitise him? If he were a Republican you wouldn’t be referring to him as “flawed.” You’d be telling it like it is. Obama is a war criminal just like Bush.” The response to that was: “Fuck you. Go kick your dog, troll. You’re now blocked.” What a nice response. Clearly, brainwashed Democrats and others really do have trouble with the truth.

This “left/right” thing is very divisive and merely propaganda. Overall on the major issues, both corporate-owned parties are the same in the US, taking orders from their corporate owners and the Military Industrial Complex, et al. That’s one reason why we don’t have Universal Health Care, or Universal Education or a true Living Wage. Governments have been using this tactic of “left” versus “right” since governments have existed. It keeps people divided with their Spectator Sports’ Mentality which is all that one sees today unfortunately.

The others in our group pretty much feel as I do, but occasionally they feel like writing a comment or two on some political site that charades as “progressive.”

Picking up on what I’ve written lots about: The topic of Millennials and others wearing nothing but black and/or grey clothing every day of the year came up. One person in our group wrote a comment about Rachel M. always wearing conservative funeral-black or drab casket-grey clothing on her show as one can see here in these images. He noted that she seems to have a phobia against colour. The responses to that went as expected. No one supported him. Because all the commenters agree with her politically and worship god Rachel M., they rushed to her defence and asked, “What’s wrong with her wearing all black every day? I think she looks nice.” Then someone trolled our friend about Rachel’s sexual orientation and gender which he had said nothing about, and that wasn’t the point. Others said that “Guys wear the same thing all the time on television” as if implying that “two wrongs make a right.” Wearing the same thing all the time was not the point. The point was about wearing the colour funeral-black all the time/on a daily basis on one’s television programme as if one has nothing else in one’s wardrobe. He said that everyone in the comments missed his point and most attacked him (using the usual “Attack the Messenger” routine) for even bringing the topic up. He said the responses to him had the signature Spectator Sports’ Mentality in defence of their partisan team and their god Rachel M.

The other day Queen Elizabeth II made a negative comment about the orange man-child as well as Obama. The fact that she included Obama was all it took for many brainwashed Democrats to hate on the Queen in comments on fake-progressive sites. Of course if she had only commented negatively on the orange man-child these same commenters would be praising her. With this politics stuff, it really is like a cult mentality that these disciples of these two teams/two religions/two cults have.

The Republicans are no different in this regard. With the orange man-child supporters, their broken-record theme is: “Make Amerrrrrrrrrrka (my spelling, not their’s) Straight and White again, no niggers, no faggots.”

Because of the world-wide Breeder Agenda that I’ve written reams about, I wasn’t aware that the US was ever anything but straight (with lots of closet cases pretending to be straight/breeders). Queers certainly are not visibly in the majority, so I don’t know what these nuts are talking about when they go on about making the US straight again. I get the “white” part. They do understand there are some white Latinos, don’t they? Are white Latinos acceptable, or should they not be here too? And some Asians are rather “white” so what about them?

Most Queers are in the closet worldwide

As for “making Amerrrrrrrrrrka straight again,” we also talked about that in the context that most Queers/GTQBLs worldwide are in the closet. I firmly believe that. Those in our group guesstimate that only approximately 1-2% of Queers worldwide are out of the closet. I think that’s probably accurate. Because “everywhere you look you see breeders” or that’s the perception they like to give, even when the guy in the breeder couple is a closeted gay guy holding hands with a female and with children and pretending to be straight for decades.

We would have a very different and positive world if all of the Queers worldwide came out of the closet (not about to happen). Laws would be different because all politicians would be out of the closet. Societal behaviour would be different all in a positive way because no one would be hiding their Queer sexuality. We wouldn’t have so-called “lawmakers” (with no law degree, mind you) making anti-Queer laws. The closet would no longer exist. The closet is a very unhealthy place to live/exist in and we would have a far healthier society if all Queers came out of the closet, which means we would see millions and millions of divorces worldwide from formerly-closeted gay guys getting divorced from their female and preparing for child support payments and so forth. And finally living their life as who they really are (Gay), rather than spending all of their life living a lie.

The people in our group asked for my opinion since I hadn’t said anything and I’m the only one of us with a website, so they all expected me to write about this, which I’ve done here.

I asked the guy in our group — our beloved “Russian troll” — if he wrote anything about Pelosi taking impeachment of Bush “off the table” during the illegitimate Bush regime years as well as in November 2017 where she said this was not the time to talk about impeachment as she and the majority of House Democrats joined with their close amigos (the Republicans) against impeachment of the orange man-child? (Related: Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly). I asked him if he mentioned that Dianne Feinstein has urged us to expect the orange man-child to serve his full term (with her help?) and she thinks he can be a good president — that’s her word not mine, as I never refer to him as “president” — if he changes some? Our amigo said he brought all of that up, but it was completely ignored by the brainwashed Democrats. He also said that he noticed that most Democrats (fake-liberals and fake-progressives) refer to the orange-man child as “President” with a capital “P” which, as he pointed out, denotes respect. Sigh. I swear.

I asked him whether he brought up this: Democrats just handed Tr**p more domestic surveillance powers. They should know better. He said he did, but they remained silent about that too. Yes, can’t ever be critical of one’s own team even when they’re helping the other team! That’s the Spectator Sports’ Mentality. You’re supposed to remain dutifully silent.

They certainly don’t like to let facts get in their way when it’s something about their team that they don’t want to hear. They prefer to operate on (usually) grandiose wishful-thinking of what will happen in their fantasy-world mind one s-election after the other.

As I told our little group, it’s tempting to write the occasional comment on a fake-progressive site that campaigns for (and supports financially?) right-wing Democrats at s-election time, although it doesn’t accomplish anything. It might make one feel better in a cathartic way, but at this point, one either understands what I’ve written here, or they don’t. And, from my experience, one has to realise this stuff/”get it” on their own, as I and mis amigos/my friends did. It can’t be forced on a person. You’ll hit the wall known as brainwashed partisan Democrats with their Spectator Sports’ Mentality. They really do want lockstep partisan agreement otherwise one gets this response from them: “Fuck off,” as the person in our group received to a seemingly innocuous comment he wrote critical of Obama. He said that he couldn’t help but notice that these brainwashed Democrats he encountered were very angry, nasty and troll-like at anyone who was not part of their group-think, and they’re so extremely thin-skinned.

Wargasm: How many loads did these three from the US, UK and France shoot during and after their terrorist attack on Syria?

As of this writing, there has been another false flag terrorist attack on Syria led by the barbaric, international bully, deranged/insane man-child en la casa blanca, with immature and mentally-twisted accomplices on a power-trip from the UK and France. The UK prime minister takes orders from the orange man-child. That piece of work enjoys wallowing in the cesspool with the company she keeps. But this barbarism is just another distraction. And the thing is, if one truly opposes the leader of a nation allegedly using chemical weapons on his own people in this instance — no genuine proof has been offered — having killed a certain number of people, why would one risk killing even one more person in Syria by launching a terrorist attack on that sovereign nation? The hypocrisy is rank. The shithole US is such a sick, barbaric-violent nation. As of this writing, Democrat Nancy Pelosi says she supports the orange-man child and his barbaric actions. She just would like for him to get congressional approval, per the United States Constitution. (roll eyes). That woman is one of the international bully’s biggest accomplices and enablers. Twisted. I think she’s afraid of him frankly. Since the orange man-child campaigned against “Nation Building” per the neocon’s Project For The New American Century (PNAC) agenda, he’s shown himself to be quite the hypocrite. Some of his rabid supporters disagree with his terrorist attack on Syria. Others agree with it because they blindly agree with anything he does and worship him. He’s their new messiah figure. It’s the same blind mentality and behaviour that the Democrats had for Obama. Using their simpleton “logic,” they claim the orange man-child is “cleaning up a mess that Obama left.” The same lie that Democrats spewed when they said, “Obama is cleaning up a mess that Bush left.” Well no, that’s not what he’s doing at all but I understand that some of the stupid-is-in trash that support the orange man-child can only grasp the simplest of clichés and ideas. His supporters are indeed among the most stupid and gullible people on the planet. In reality, the insane orange-man child doesn’t care about them or about the US. To him, this is all a reality television show that we’re seeing on a daily basis from la casa blanca with different actors coming and going. It’s all about him and his enormous head.

That’s one thing about this immature and juvenile Spectator Sports’ Mentality. It cannot be overstated that the people who are brainwashed into it are so terribly thin-skinned, which does not at all speak well of their corrupt Democratic Party, but they fail to realise that. They too are not the brightest of people on the planet I have to say, even though they think they are. Because if their party were all that they pretend it to be and claim it is, they wouldn’t care what anyone said about it. Instead, they would constantly say: “Our party is strong enough to bare any criticism.” But you’ll never hear that from them because obviously that’s not the case considering their level of anger and their nasty “Fuck You” responses to even the mildest of criticism. Very pathetic people indeed.

Well enough of all of this septic stuff. I know I’ve had enough of it. Just from proofing this article multiple times. Speaking of Russian, now back to something pleasurable, at least for me: the Rachmaninov Fourth. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Dudamel does it best! No, Bernstein! No, Solti! No, Karajan!

The Classical Music Snots and their worship of celebrity conductors. But Classical Music Violinist Nigel Kennedy seems to disagree with them. He says “Conductors are completely over-rated.”

Hola a todos. The Classical Music Snots and their god conductors. Yes, with the Classical Music Snots, a performance is all about the conductor whom they see as a god. That’s the impression one gets from them. It doesn’t matter what the piece is. One sees this all the time in the comments under YT classical music videos. With a certain group of people, there’s this fixation/obsession with the conductor of a performance as if s/he is solely and entirely responsible for the quality of a performance, which of course is nonsense. The Classical Music Snots — those self-appointed authorities on classical music where everything is “sublime” with them; they do have a new word “nuanced” (as in “wonderfully nuanced”) but they’re misusing it — consistently feel the need to name-drop their favourite celebrity conductor’s name, as if they think by doing so gives them credibility as a “seasoned musician,” Dahling. I often think that the Classical Music Snots are people who wanted to be professional musicians but didn’t come close to possessing the required talent, skill-level, musicianship and intelligence necessary to be a professional/degreed musician. And frankly, rather than go through all the work required for that — the years of study, practising, training and discipline as well as costs — to be a professional musician, it’s so much easier and requires no work at all to be an arm-chair critic of classical music performances trolling around and dropping the name of one’s favourite celebrity conductor(s), as if one were a professional musician. I say that because I’ve never known or worked with any musicians who behave like the Classical Music Snots (CMS). They are a unique group and so predictable.

Also, as part of their pretentiousness and class-consciousness (roll eyes), the Classical Music Snots sometimes have to go on about how “classy” some conductor is or some “classy” gesture that one of their god conductors made during or at the end of the performance. I personally never use the word “classy,” which is defined as: “of high class, rank, or grade; stylish; admirably smart; elegant.” To me, this ugly “classy” mentality comes off as class-ist and normally I don’t give any thought to what social class/social standing somebody is in. I see people as people, for the most part. But that’s obviously not the case with the Classical Music Snots and their attempt to be elitists. So tiresome.

Mi amigo/My friend asked me if was going to respond to any of these CMS people and their comments under YT videos. It’s tempting, but no. That would be a most futile effort. I suspect if I were to write what I’m about to say here in any YT comment where people are gushing over their favourite conductor, most people — if not all — would not understand my comment because they have brainwashed with this ridiculous mentality that the conductor of a performance is the “ultimate and end all” for that performance. I would hit a wall and would probably be hated on for writing the following:

In reality, a performance of a work is only as good as all of the musicians are. It’s a joint effort. It’s not about one person (the conductor).

For example, Gustavo Dudamel — the music director of both the superb Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela as well as the Los Ángeles Philharmonic — or Leonard Bernstein, Georg Solti, Herbert von Karajan and anybody else would have a sucked performance of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 (Choral), for example, if the Orchestra and/or Chorus sucked.

I don’t really understand this obsession and gushing over conductors (or vocal soloists for that matter, but that’s for another article). And of course they are always big-named, “celebrity” conductors. I’ve done some conducting in my background and overall my performances didn’t really sound that differently than anyone else’s performance because we’re all presumably using the same (urtext) authentic performance-edition score and hopefully closely adhering to the wishes of the composer therein. It’s not like (celebrity) conductors are making stuff up and adding it to the score — which is strictly frowned upon to begin with if one is to have any credibility — in order to make the “Bernstein performance” or the “Dudamel performance” different than the “Karajan performance.” When the CMS drop the name of their favourite celebrity conductor and that his (it’s usually a guy) performance is supposedly the best, they never say how or why it’s the best, probably because they don’t know and saying any more than that would expose their musical ignorance. No description of the performance and what makes it the best (according to them as self-appointed musical authorities) is ever written. No, the Classical Music Snots usually refer to a performance solely by the conductor’s name. A CMS will write: “The Solti is the best.” Well idiot, that tells me nothing about the musicians on stage who performed the piece. Yet another arm-chair expert/critic who has probably never played an instrument in their life. The musicians on stage played the piece, not the conductor. The conductor didn’t play one note, unless s/he conducted from a keyboard (piano, harpsichord or continuo). So who were these stellar musicians that you’re going on about when you write “The Solti is the best?” Were they the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chorus where Chorus Director, Margaret Hillis, prepared the Chicago Symphony Chorus? Or was Solti guest conducting somewhere in el mundo/the world? If that’s the case, was the Chorus in that performance of the same superb caliber of the Chicago Symphony Chorus prepared by Ms Hillis (who by the way won 9 Grammy Awards over the years for Best Choral Performance)? Or do you not care about any of that because “it’s all about the conductor” in your insipid mind? Idiots. You said absolutely nothing about the Orchestra and Chorus on stage. It was all about Solti. And often with a symphonic choral work, the Chorus is completely ignored by the Classical Music Snots as if they live under the absurd belief that the choristers are not really musicians or are of a second-class musician status. That’s terribly disrespectful to the Symphony Chorus. Choristers of that caliber are of a comparable level of musicianship to that of the orchestral musicians. That’s why they’re there! An orchestra’s Symphony Chorus — or an invited guest Orchestra Chorus — is supposed to be of the same level of musical excellence as that of its Orchestra. But with the Classical Music Snots, they refer to just the orchestra’s name, if they mention the orchestra at all really. The overwhelming majority of the time their comment contains only the conductor’s name which is also very disrespectful to the other musicians on stage. It should also be pointed out that some celebrity conductors have recorded some works multiple times with different performing forces and with different recording companies. So in that instance, one performance can be better in some ways — either musically or due to recording techniques or both — than another performance by the same conductor, so which “Bernstein performance” or which “Solti performance” were these idiots going on about? While writing this I saw a video that read “Brahms: Ein Deutsches Requiem – Abbado.” The idiot that posted the video didn’t have the intelligence to list any of the performers’ names. To him, it was all about the conductor. So one had no idea who the Orchestra and Chorus were. They were completely disrespected. I guess Claudio Abbado sang it himself and accompanied himself. I’d like to have seen that spectacle. In the comments, they were just as bad. One person mentioned one of the soloist’s names. Of the comments I scanned, it was all about “Abbado” and “Abbado, rest in peace.”

I’ve heard countless performances of Beethoven’s Ninth, for example, and have performed the piece myself in two Orchestra Choruses: the Choral Arts Society of Washington (with the National Symphony Orchestra in the Kennedy Center) and the San Francisco Symphony Chorus with the San Francisco Symphony. Frankly, other than the performance with the Symphony Chorus — and that performance was conducted by Kurt Masur where he held that fermata in the score forever on the word “Gott” keeping the soprano section stuck on their high A indefinitely (which I liked by the way) — the performances I was involved in all pretty much sounded the same because, again, all musicians (including the conductor) were of the highest caliber and were using the same authentic edition scores, perhaps even the same performance (urtext) edition, by that I mean publisher (such as Editions Henle, Peters, Bärenreiter, and so forth). Also, it should be pointed out that the public expects well-known classical music works to generally sound as they’ve always heard them with only some minor differences depending upon the conductor’s interpretation. So, as for that fermata on the word “Gott” that I mentioned earlier in the score of Beethoven’s Ninth, by comparison Andrés Orozco-Estrada, the conductor of my favourite hr-Sinfonieorchester/Frankfurt Radio Symphony holds that fermata for a surprisingly short time compared to the late Kurt Masur. But that’s his interpretation. In the performances I had the pleasure of being in, each conductor’s interpretation in places was only slightly different than that of another conductor.

But it’s Beethoven’s Ninth, people/CMS! It pretty much always sounds the same regardless of which conductor is at the podium.

What makes each performance different in the case of the Beethoven is not the conductor, per se, but rather the caliber of the Orchestra and a very well-prepared and polished Symphony Chorus singing with a straight tone (perfect intonation). Which reminds me speaking of Beethoven’s Ninth, the stellar University of Maryland Chorus performed Beethoven’s Ninth over 38 times. They served as the guest Chorus of many (inter)national orchestras and conductors. I don’t think any other Orchestra Chorus holds that record. I guess one could say it was their “signature” piece. “The Word” among orchestras and conductors must have been: “You want the best Beethoven’s Ninth? Get Dr Paul Traver’s University of Maryland Chorus.” For example, this was written about them on their 36th performance of the Ninth in the late 1980s:

National Symphony Orchestra & University of Maryland Chorus

“…an excellent performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was presented to an overflow audience Saturday night at Wolf Trap. This excellence, however, was a last-minute development, and primary credit goes not to the National Symphony, which was the orchestra for the occasion, but to the University of Maryland Chorus, which came to the orchestra’s rescue. The Chorus — one of the best — celebrated its 20th anniversary and its 36th Beethoven Ninth by singing the final movement as well as I have ever heard it sung, live or on records.”
Source: The Washington Post, Joseph McLellan

Note that the reviewer doesn’t even mention the conductor’s name, the way the CMS do. Instead, for him it was all about the Orchestra and Chorus as it should be since they were the performers. In Britain, it may still be true but I think it’s accurate to say that Beethoven’s Ninth was — and still is? — the “signature” piece of Simon Haley’s City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra Chorus especially for their performances of the Beethoven at the BBC Proms. “The Word” in Britain must be: “It has to be the CBSO Chorus.” (Pronunciation note: for those who don’t know, the word “Birmingham,” as in City of Birmingham, is not pronounced the way it’s pronounced in the shithole US).

I guess one has gathered by now that I don’t worship conductors. Never have. For a choral performance, the last thing I do is to see who the conductor is. The first thing I look for is to see who the Chorus is and who prepared them (who the Chorus Director is). As a choral person, that’s far more important to me than who the conductor is since I’m there for a well-trained polished Chorus (and Orchestra) and not for a celebrity conductor. And from having performed under many celebrity conductors in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall and in Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco, conductors’ level of experience varies when it comes to having worked with a Chorus. Some have more of a rapport with the Chorus and level of respect, where others don’t. There are some orchestral conductors who are more like “choral people” — especially when the Chorus Director conducts the performance which is rare — and other conductors are not, as they’ve had more experience working only with orchestras.

Some celebrity conductors act like pompous assholes frankly. Self-absorbed and really stuck on themselves and their celebrity status. Where others such as Andrés Orozco-Estrada and Daniel Barenboim are much more humble and modest and try to make it about the music and the musicians rather than about themselves, and in my opinion that’s far more respectful. I can’t stand arrogant people. Basura. Arrogance is a sign of insecurity and feeling the need to pump oneself up.

So this nonsense about some conductor does it better than another conductor is really so tiresome. I also find it amateurish and it shows a lack of understanding of what makes a superb performance. It’s not just the celebrity conductor standing up there “waving his arms around.” And I should point out that some of the finest orchestras can play without a conductor, even in a concerto setting. They rely on the leader/concertmaster and the principals (first chair players) in collaboration with each other as extremely experienced professional musicians.

So in conclusion, one can have the best conductor in the world but if the musicians s/he is conducting are not that good, it won’t matter who’s conducting them. And who cares who the best conductor is? How would that even be judged? That’s as pointless as when these Classical Music Snots refer to a composer as “the best composer who ever lived” or “the best pianist who ever lived.” Being or like sheeple, the “best” mentality is so brainwashed into them. It’s also so terribly amateurish, because best composer and best pianist is subjective. There are many superb pianists whom the Classical Music Snots have never heard of who could be in the running for “best pianist who ever lived.” One of my former piano professors is outstandingly superb. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to study with her. She’s of the caliber of any world-renowned pianist today, but she chose to go into teaching at the University level — rather than living in the grueling performance/concertising grind of living on planes and in hotel rooms and with trying to play the Brahms’s First or Second (or both as some pianists prefer to do) on an interrupted sleep schedule with jetlag — and until her retirement she was Head of the Keyboard Department at the major University’s School of Music where she taught for decades. She’s now Professor Emerita. Yet most people have never heard of her, but she could easily be in the running for “best pianist who ever lived.”

Someone is probably ready to ask me: So there are no conductors that you like or respect? And where did I say that? That’s what you got out of what I’ve written here?

There are some conductors I like but I’m a bit slow to come up with their names because, unlike the Classical Music Snots, I don’t worship conductors and they’re the last person I think of in a performance. I like Benjamin Northey and Paavo Järvi (they’re both excellent in working with a piano soloist in a concerto), Andrés Orozco-Estrada (he’s superb in working with the Chorus in a symphonic choral performance), and orchestral/choral conductor Philippe Herreweghe. They are four conductors who come to mind. And Philippe founded his own choral ensembles, the superb Collegium Vocale Ghent which performs throughout Europe with major symphony orchestras, such as the hr-Sinfonieorchester/Frankfurt Radio Symphony. But when I think of a performance, I never or rarely think of the conductor first because of all the performing musicians on stage. Some conductors look like they’re just waving their arms. I saw a clip on the Classic Arts Showcase of the Classical Music Snots’s god Sir Georg Solti conducting like that. He wasn’t “beating time” at all. And the superb performances I watch could likely be performed without a conductor, as I’ve seen with some performances. Pianist Boris Berezovsky played — was it one of the Brahms’s piano concertos? I think it was — without a conductor. It may have been removed from YT “due to copyright reasons” (groan; this copyright shit is out-of-control) since I can’t find it now unfortunately. Boris sort of conducted from the piano instead and looked like he was working with the principals. But that performance sounded as if they did have a conductor.

And like some other musicians who engage in what I call “play-acting” there are conductors who engage in “conducting-acting.” For them, they think they have to act out/put on this emotional show for the cameras, musicians and audience as if they’re “feeling” every measure of the piece. So if the piece is Chopin, for example, they act out/put on these pained looks to make it look like they’re feeling the pain of Chopin when he wrote the piece. One might think they’re auditioning for a role in a telenovela. Many pianist do the same ridiculous shit. And even some violinists, flautists and other musicians. They look like they’re having an orgasm while they’re performing. Then there are the legendary pianists such as Artur Rubinstein, Vladimir Horowitz and some others who didn’t do any of that play-acting nonsense. And I don’t remember seeing Robert Shaw do any of it either, and the same for Margaret Hillis. As for conductors who engage in this ridiculous behaviour, I won’t name names but SR (his initials) comes to mind. I saw him conduct a performance of The Bells by Rachmaninov and he put on quite the erratic emotional spectacle show for that. It’s just really needless theatrics and it’s learned behaviour. I think some conductors think they have to make it look like they’re doing something when in reality a well-rehearsed and prepared Orchestra and Chorus could probably play the piece without the conductor. But I think the bottom line is that at the end of the performance the conductor that engages in all these antics is trying to send the message to the audience as to how important he (or she) is and that the performance couldn’t have possibly been as outstanding as it was without his emotionally-crazed and pained looking antics from the podium. And he acts all hot and sweaty and huffing and puffing, as if the performance is all because of him.

I have two favourite performances I like of the Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1, and when I mention them I would list the pianist first, then the orchestra’s name and then the conductor, in that order. I would not say just the conductor’s name — it’s the same conductor for both performances, same orchestra but different pianists — because that doesn’t really tell anyone anything, especially when he wasn’t the piano soloist. And the conductor didn’t play a note in the performance, but he’s a superb conductor and I enjoy watching him and he works beautifully with the orchestra and with the pianist. I include all of the superb musicians on stage and not just gloat and cheer lead over the conductor like many people do, such as the know-it-all Classical Music Snots. And the leader/concertmaster has a major role with an orchestra second to the conductor but nobody ever talks about him or her, including the Classical Music Snots. I guess they don’t know the role/job of leader. I always watch the leader very closely whenever the camera is on him/her. They’re quite interesting to watch. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Nigel Kennedy interview: ‘Conductors are completely over-rated’

Gramaphone: Are conductors overrated?

Herbert von Karajan: save us from the resurrection of that old devil
“It seemed as if Herbert von Karajan, one-time Nazi, the most tyrannical, reviled, and lavishly rewarded conductor in history, had returned from the dead.”

Schubert-Liszt Wanderer Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra – Teo Gheorghiu – RLPO

Hola a todos. Below is a superb performance I’ve enjoyed and thought I would bring to reader’s attention. As the article title says, it’s the Schubert-Liszt Wanderer Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra with pianist Teo Gheorghiu and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Vasily Petrenko who also conducted this piece.

A little bit of history about this piece:

The prolific composer, Franz Schubert (who died before he reached his 32nd cumpleaños/birthday: 31 January 1797 – 19 November 1828) wrote a piece for piano called The Wanderer Fantasy. It’s an extremely difficult work for solo piano. I first heard it when one of my piano professors at the Conservatory of Music where I trained played it on her Faculty Recital.

Then later, Franz Liszt (October 22, 1811 – July 31, 1886) took the original piece that Schubert had composed and he (Liszt) transcribed it for piano and orchestra, giving part of the piano writing to the orchestra, although the pianist still has quite a workout in the piano and orchestra version. Except for the tiny cadenza which forms the transition to the E Flat Major section of the first movement, Liszt adhered scrupulously to Schubert’s original work in creating his transcription.

It was also at the Conservatory that I first heard the Schubert-Liszt arrangement a year or so later. One of the finalists in the annual Student Soloist Competition played it with the Conservatory Symphony Orchestra. His interpretation was on the heavier side (more pedal) and he made it more of a “showy piece” compared to the performance here, although I enjoyed it.

I prefer the Liszt version — known as “the Schubert-Liszt” Wanderer Fantasy, which is described as a piano concertino.

Both the solo version and the transcription version are rarely performed. I think the solo version is rarely performed because of its difficulty. I’ve worked on the Schubert-Liszt from time-to-time over the years, but have never performed it. I’d like to perform it, but at this point in life I don’t suspect I will have that opportunity because concerto engagement are extremely rare to come by — some orchestras don’t really enjoy accompanying to begin with — unless one is an international concert artist and has an artist agent who can schedule concerto performances, then it’s much easier to perform concerti.

From my understanding, the concerto for a programme is chosen by the orchestra and what they would like to perform. The piano artist is chosen based on the artist that the orchestra would like to feature and what concerti s/he has in their repertoire. Most concert artists have a list of the standard concerti in their repertoire, much of which they learned early-on in their training and/or career at the urging of their piano professor(s).

Although in this performance below, maybe it’s just me but I sort of got the sense that the conductor, Vasily Petrenko, wasn’t that hot on doing this piece — and looked a bit bored conducting it at times — and I thought he seemed a bit cold to the piano soloist compared to other warm interactions between conductor and soloist (regardless of gender) that I’ve observed with other orchestras and conductors especially in Europe.

I’ve been waiting years for a recorded video performance of the Schubert-Liszt where the orchestra and pianist were of the same high caliber. This is the best recorded performance in video format that I’ve seen or heard. Other than the very limited camera shots — oddly viewers never get to see the full orchestra, including the principal/first chair cellist who has a solo in the slow movement — they do keep the camera on the keyboard, where it should be much of the time. I noticed that most of the first violinists within camera view are women, including the leader/concert master.

Too often these days, camera crews are obsessed with keeping the camera parked on the face of the conductor — and watching his every facial gesture (which we don’t need to see) and the sweat on his forehead and upper lip. Or, the camera is parked on the pianist’s face so viewers can watch/”study?” the pianist’s facial expressions, the quivering lips and mouth movements, his or her pained expressions while playing, the pianist’s eyes rolling back and gazing up at the ceiling, along with other needless theatrics. I call all that play-acting. It’s unnecessary. Personally, I can see enough of a pianist’s face from their profile view (camera facing the keyboard as in this performance). Theatrics turn me off.

I found it interesting that Vladimir Horowitz said about himself “I’m probably not too interesting to watch.” He elaborated on that by saying that you wouldn’t see him playing with quivering lips or his eyes rolling up towards the ceiling and gazing at that for awhile. Artur Rubinstein didn’t do any of that nonsense either. From what I’ve seen, that generation of pianists didn’t engage in theatrics. Neither does the pianist, Teo Gheorghiu, in this performance. But these days, there’s no shortage of pianists who seem to have to facially “act” out their playing. Some pianists seem to go out of their way to make the piece they’re playing look very difficult, which is the opposite of how one is trained. One is trained to make one’s playing looking effortless, even with the most difficult of pieces. And all of these (pained) theatrics that pianists and other artists engage in contradict that approach in training. Has no one ever thought of that?

I was pleased to see the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra programme this piece. And Teo Gheorghiu is superb, as is the Orchestra. Very clean playing and with a very light touch; not at all over-pedaled. Sparkling runs. Their Steinway has a brilliant treble register. It must be a Homburg Steinway (as opposed to a New York Steinway). Teo’s interpretation is refreshing to hear and more on the “chamber music,” side if you know what I mean by that. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Schubert-Liszt Wanderer Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra
Teo Gheorghiu, piano
Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra
Vasily Petrenko, conductor

Queers get little recognition in The Arts

Queers get little recognition in The Arts because they’re assumed to be straight in our heteronormative society.

Hola a todos. It just occurred to me that I’ve not written about this. I think I’ve written about everything else Queer-related to the point of exhaustion of the topic. There’s nothing left to write about that I haven’t said countless times, other than this.

Queers, who historically, have been very much in The Arts, here in 2018 still get little recognition in The Arts, outside of some Queer-related publications and Queer media. Oh there are the Gay and Lesbian Choruses and instrumental ensembles. But they’re now called Lesbian and Gay Choruses (instead of Gay and Lesbian) as these sheeple have gotten in lockstep with the ridiculous Queer revisionist history acronym “LGBT(Q).” Even though the official Gay or Queer acronym is now this insane mess: LGBTQQICAPF2K+ that I wrote about at that link. But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

Even though historically Queers have been well-represented in The Arts, they remain mostly invisible and extremely heteronormative and perceived as straight in their public performances (outside of Queer-related venues) and the viewing public indeed thinks that most Queers are straight/breeders, because we live in an extremely heteronormative society with its 24/7 Breeder Agenda.

All the video clips (dance and otherwise) I see from The Arts are always him and her, with maybe one fleeting exception to that in one comedy-genre video I saw where one saw two guys dancing the tango together for about 2 seconds. (Didn’t want to give them too much time for the viewers to realise it was two guys dancing together!)

One of the most memorable (in a negative way), annoying and in-your-face-with-our-breeder-sexuality video segments that was shown recently was titled, “The Lover’s Awake” from A Midsummer Night’s Dream with music by Benjamin Britten. It’s interesting and ironic that they used music by a Queer boy (Benjamin Britten was gay; his partner was Peter Pears) for this breeder segment. It featured not just one but two him and her couples (the typical: him tall dominant, her short submissive, both white). They were shown fawning over each other, gazing into each other’s eyes. The same obnoxious breeder behaviour one can see in-your-face breeder couples engaged in here in the Breeder Mecca of The Castro (the former Gay Mecca) in San Francisco. If I wanted to see that scene, all I have to do is to look out my window. Please keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that hypocritical breeder couples were whining about gay couples making out in public and being “in our face with their gay sexuality.” It seems that it’s perfectly fine when the breeders make out in public; they just don’t like seeing any Queers making out. Hypocrites.

I see ballroom dancing where a major orchestra is accompanying a large room full of supposedly breeder dancers. They’re in Vienna where this was recorded. All the females are in white dresses and the guys are in stuffy-looking black tuxes with white shirts. Him and her. So tiresome and predicable. How many of these guys dancing with females are really Queer? How many of these females dancing with guys are Queer/lesbians? Well you never know and production doesn’t want you to know. They want the viewer to see a ballroom full of breeders because they (breeders) are the only couples in el mundo/the world in our heteronomative society. It seems that all of the videos that have been produced in The Arts field that are available to any television network are produced by breeders, and if anyone has suggested that Queer couples be included to show him and him or her and her, that suggestion has been adamantly rejected regardless of the country of production. So one won’t see two guys or two lesbians dancing together in arts videos, unless some Queer alternative production company creates their own, but don’t count on that being shown on an arts network.

All of this is especially true in heteronormative ballet with its Breeder Agenda. Ballet is all about him and her and her game-playing and her head trips with the guy she’s dancing with. She does the “come hither” ritual repeatedly with the guy that she’s routinely paired off with, and then moments later she pushes him away. So it’s “come here, go away, come here, go away, come here, go away.” That’s her head trip/game playing in ballet. She keeps doing this silly head trip routine as part of the ballet until in the end she finally accepts him (who is really a Queer boy in real life?) and then they kiss. So predictable and stale.

Opera — with its divas who mistake shrill screaming for beautiful singing with their “heavy vibrato” where one can’t even tell what pitch/note s/he’s aiming for — is no different with its extremely heteronormative story lines promoting the Breeder Agenda as well.

I’ve done some research into this and also I’ve “read between the closeted lines,” so to speak, and I’ve noticed that some Queers that are responsible for programming arts videos for television seem to be in the closet, or they publicly adhere to a “hush hush” closeted mentality. It’s sad to me that someone who does programming for an arts network will refer to his partner as “my friend” (instead of “my partner” or “my boyfriend”), or at least that’s the way he’s referred to in corporate media articles. I suspect if the guy had referred to his partner affectionately as such it would have been printed that way, no? And the article would have referred to them as a gay couple who are the programmers? But referring to one’s boyfriend or partner as “my friend” is the oldest (and coldest) of closet-case code language around and it’s most reminiscent of the 1950s and before mentality. The thinking seems to be: “If one is involved in any way, shape or form in The Arts, one must stay in the closet because otherwise one can offend the breeder audience and especially the anti-Queer, prejudiced and bigoted Classical Music Snots.” It’s always best to cater to prejudiced and bigoted breeders, isn’t it? [sarcasm intended]

I also know that the anti-Queer Classical Music Snots — those know-it-all, wannabe-musicians, arm chair critics whom I can’t stand — are the first to whine when anyone dare suggest that any of their celebrity musicians whom they worship and see as gods might be gay. This came up in my article about organist Diane Bish. With the Classical Music Snots, their knives come out at that moment and they talk about how irrelevant an artist’s sexuality is to the topic at hand, yet they don’t mind at all when someone goes on about a female artist and her husband. They’re perfectly fine with that. Their hypocrisy is duly noted. And as I’ve pointed out before, by not raising the artist’s perceived Queer sexuality one is automatically assuming that the artist is straight/a breeder — or the “correct” sexuality according to the Classical Music Snots — because that’s the way our heteronormative society operates. Queers are thought to be straight until they finally come out of the closet.

Some Queers like to go on about the progress that GTQBLs have made as we as a society race back to the 1940s under the current fascistic political climate. But I have to say from what I see in arts video clips that are selected for broadcast by supposed-Queers themselves (despite their closet-case code language), nothing has been accomplished by Queers in The Arts, at least for which we get the recognition for. Because from watching heteronormative music videos and film clips one gets the impression that the entire world is straight and we’re still back in the 1940s where the only couples are (white) him and her. And as I’ve pointed out countless times, many of the him and her couples one sees in public consists of a closeted gay guy playing the role of “the husband” and fulfilling his role expected of him by his anti-Queer, prejudice and bigoted family.

Just a quick search of YT videos, I found a plethora of videos showing Gay and Lesbian Choruses, for example. I would think that within those videos there would be some superb choral ensembles of the highest choral excellence meeting the standards of a performing arts network and that they could show them after permission is gladly given. One would expect this — if programmers really wanted to show them — from a network where presumably two Queer boys are the programmers, no? Or do they prefer to give the illusion that all the world is straight (as they too pretend to be in public?) here in 2018. Chau.—el barrio rosa

The Fake Christmas and Easter Christians

Hola a todos. You probably know some of them. The (what I call) Christmas and Easter Christians are the frauds that pretend to be a Christian and who only show up at a parish or Cathedral Church twice a year in their attempt to try to deceive the Christian god fellow, The Holy Trinity. Of course he can see right through them. They’re very transparent in their behaviour. They don’t go to church any other time of year, just those two High Holy Days. And they only do so because they feel it’s a requirement to try to buy their way into the non-existent place called Heaven.

The breeder family across the street from me is part of this. They’re in their process of brainwashing their children with a belief in the Floating Cloud Being. The mother of the children is usually wearing jeans, but I noticed that for church on Easter she was wearing this long flowing lingerie dress. Her in a dress? Why the change in wardrobe? The Floating Cloud Being doesn’t care what you wear. Or was she covertly hoping she might pick up on some guy while at church? But The Holy Trinity can see through all that. We’re told by his devout disciples that he’s omnipotent, all-powerful and all-knowing. So none of these fake-Christians are fooling him. Her husband certainly lives the life of Jesus. [sarcasm intended]. He has the personality of hardened cement. With his lack of social skills, one wonders how the two possibly met? And they’ve allowed their children to become phone addicts. I’m sure they’re reading the bible on their phones, aren’t you? I’m sure that’s what all those pics are you see on their phones. Pics of Jesus and his 12 disciples. I think Jesus was a Queer boy since he enjoyed hanging out with guys. A Queer boy that I know in the neighbourhood who’s not religious at all walked by their place as this breeder family was leaving for church and the mother said to him, “Happy Easter!” Ugh. He sort of ignored her. Why would she assume that someone is into Easter just because she is? And I don’t think she or her husband were into Easter until they became parents. So typical. More religious brainwashing.

The reality is that one does not need to believe in any deity to be a good person. “It’s nice to be nice” does not require any religious beliefs. And some of the most heinous and despicable people on Earth call themselves a Christian. The current occupant of la casa blanca comes to mind. He’s another Christian-in-name-only fake Christmas and Easter Christian. His church is a golf course every Domingo/Sunday.

So despite the turnout at parish and cathedral churches on Christmas and Easter, your Holy and Indivisible Trinity is not fooled by your attendance. If anything, he probably frowns on it. “Look at these frauds trying to play me, trying to deceive me, trying to work me, trying to suck up to me” he probably says. Instead, he looks at the way you live your life the other 363 days a year. Chau.—el barrio rosa

“Nelson Freire’s wife” and “Nelson Freire homosexual”

Hola a todos. Well first it was organist Diane Bish that people became fascinated with and who would show up here looking for information about her sexual orientation. She’s still a hot item by the way. Nearly every day someone comes to pink barrio in search of information about Diane Bish’s sexual orientation. The search words are usually: “Is Diane Bish married?” Of course they mean is she married to a guy. I think it’s accurate to say that the crowd that listens to and appreciates Diane’s superb organ playing is mostly anti-gay/fundamentalist Christians who hold to the bigoted belief that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” (roll eyes) — with their over 50% divorce rate here in the US — which is why I took them on here in this article. I’d had enough of them. Los pendejos.

Well, lately Brasileño pianist Nelson Freire has been coming up in my search words too with people wondering about his sexual orientation. The search words used for him are: “Nelson Freire’s wife” and “Nelson Freire homosexual.” Note that they use the clinical word “homosexual” instead of gay. That tells me it was probably one of the bigoted and prejudiced Classical Music Snots searching for information about him.

Why is it so important to some heteronormative (and bigoted/anti-gay?) people that pianist Nelson Freire have a wife? What’s that about? Why must he have a wife? Why does he have to be a breeder/straight? Suppose he’s a Queer boy/gay? Would knowing that destroy people’s image of him and would they lose all respect for Nelson if they learned that he’s gay. It would certainly expose people’s anti-gay prejudices and bigotry.

To my knowledge Nelson doesn’t have a wife or need one quite frankly! The only pictures I’ve seen of him with a female have been with his longtime friend and concert pianist Marta Argerich.

Of the interviews I’ve read with Nelson, he’s a lovely guy. Very down-to-Earth. He’s certainly not narcissistic. Quite the opposite. He doesn’t make his music all about him. In fact, he doesn’t like attention, and I sense that his agent — who gets concert engagements for him — has had some problem with that aspect of his personality.

I don’t know if he’s gay or not and it doesn’t really matter. I can take a guess. But sometimes it’s very difficult to tell — even with the most reliable Gaydar — until one talks with the person a bit, and then one gets a better feel for them.

It’s just that no one ends up here by searching, “Nelson Freire’s boyfriend” or “Nelson Freire’s partner.” No, in the typical world-wide Breeder Agenda, it’s always the word “wife” that the anti-gay, heteronormative prejudiced bigots use, which is rather typical of many in the classical music audience — even though many classical musicians are Queer — as I wrote about in my article about Diane Bish and people’s obsession with her sexuality.

I might as well talk about Diane a little bit. I think she has retired from performing. Would Diane’s fan-base be crushed if they learned she’s la lesbiana? Some would. Some already have written despairingly about her because of her alleged lesbian sexual orientation. I can hear them now: “I’ll never listen to her again or watch The Joy of Music.” I’m sure Diane will be absolutely crushed to hear that. [sarcasm intended]. Who cares what you do?! Then use that time that you would have used to watch Diane and go get yourself some psychotherapy to work through your unhealthy anti-Queer prejudices and bigotry, okay? Do we understand each other? Basura. I can’t stand these trash.

Nelson is still performing and he’s an outstanding pianist, although I doubt that he’s still playing the Saint-Saëns’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in g these days. If he is, he’s probably not playing it quite like he played it back in the 1980s (see videos below). I say that because he’s 73 years old as of this writing. The aging process is so cruel. The last piece I saw him perform was the Schumann Piano Concerto in a in The Royal Concertgebouw in Amsterdam (I think that’s where it was; am I remembering that performance correctly?) in the Nederlands. (By the way, a little geography instruction: Please don’t refer to Nederlanden/the Nederlands as “Holland.” That is incorrect. Holland is only 2 provinces — Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland (North and South) — in the Nederlands so it’s incorrect to refer to the 12 provinces known as Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/the Kingdom of the Nederlands as “Holland.” I would think that the Dutch people would get tired of hearing that and would probably think to themselves, “Where did these stupid people go to school; didn’t they ever open a world geography book?” Most likely they’re from the stupid-is-in US, and don’t know the difference! Because I suspect that many people from the US couldn’t find the US on a world map.)

I think this interesting and tour de force performance by Nelson of the Saint-Saëns PC2 is probably from the 1980s. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Cristina Ortíz y Nelson Freire play Momoprécoce by Héctor Villa-Lobos