Marian Schedenig

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.

I don't think it's an implied general unacceptability, and Alsop's objection may be stronger than it "needs" to be. But as long as it is virtually the *only* film centred on a world-famous, female, lesbian conductor, it's arguably at this point that *every* film with such a character is portraying it as a villain - and I think that's what her phrasing implies ("To have an opportunity to portray a woman in that role and to make her an abuser", emphasis mine). So I do think she has a point, even if it isn't one that has to be shared by everyone. Rejecting it as entirely reprehensible seems about as extreme to me as generally rejecting the film because of her view on it.

Good. I've been meaning to revisit Berlin anyway. After three concerts in a row, I doubt he'll immediately go on another "tour" concert. I can totally imagine him also doing London and/or Vienna next year at this point, but I would expect that to be a separate trip. Perhaps he's reserving that for Vienna…

I didn't see Tár (primarily) as a relatable tragic character. She's too close to real life examples of conductors who were horrible tyrants, even if (perhaps even because of that) they produced great artistic results. Someone like Alsop probably had to contend with people like that throughout her career to become successful, maybe even had to oppose them, or maybe even oppose using their method herself (surely male conductors at least can get a career advantage out of at least some of that stuff, as long as they're artistically convincing enough and have enough people on their side). Tár is a character remarkably similar to Alsop in some aspects who probably behaves very much in a way that many people she encountered in reality do and in which she herself probably very deliberately doesn't. That doesn't necessarily make the film "wrong". But she has a point - at the very least a subjective, but valid one. How the film portrays this behaviour seems mostly very accurate. It's quite uncomfortably successful in that regard.