Marian Schedenig

(That's what I said…)

Hi, I'm Curly, and I only surround myself with people who allow me to keep using that name.

I'm familiar with Spiral (I just played it again the other day), but probably not with the Stravinsky, because it doesn't remind me of anything. What is it?

Fixed.

Where?

Changes in interpretation (which I maybe don't always agree with, but clearly Karajan's views changed), advances in technology (though the problem with Karajan always being on the bleeding edge of technology is that fresh remasters of his analogue recordings sound better than his later digital ones, even if they may have been better at the time). Sometimes different orchestras (his 80s digital Berliner Planets are better performed than his 60s Wiener version, although that has the distinction of being one of the first mainland Europe recordings of the work, as far as I know). In the end though, why complain? If you prefer earlier recordings, stick to those. Technology. During the 80s, there must have been a massive rush among labels to be the first to offer digital recordings of any given work (I was too young to be aware of it, but that's what I take from reading contemporary reviews… pretty much like the 60s and 70s were a battle field of who could manage the first complete recordings of Wagner's Ring).

The Omen on the other hand… "No, that's Orff!" It isn't.

We sang that years ago in our very first concert with our current choir director: Some spots in it remind me of Morricone, actually. I've never heard anything else by Lauridsen though.

Varese. And since I don't know anything by Varese, I have no idea if her comment makes sense.

I'm confidently excited for this film.

[Wrong thread]

1. That's horrible. 2. That sounds like the perfect premise for the next spin-off series.

Here's a link: https://www.instagram.com/p/C55-MG-OREE/?img_index=5

It seems to me that was at least partly her point though. If there were plenty of other films with such a setting, I imagine she wouldn't object to one of them vilifying its subject. That's what I said myself, and why I don't think it's a valid reason to generally condemn the film. But like Tom managed to phrase more concisely than I did above, I think her POV can be understood. It's a quote copied from Wikipedia, which likely took it from a longer source (and interview I would imagine). I don't expect it has the full context, and I would expect (but I obviously don't know) that if you were to talk to her about it, she would elaborate in more detail what specifically she objected to and what she (maybe/I imagine) didn't.