On Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 6:18:35 AM UTC-7, Handel8 wrote:
> I came across this a couple weks ago and didn't make much of it, but I
> went back to the Decca Classics web site just now to double check
> whether I was halucinating. It looks like Herbert Blomstedt recorded a
> complete recording of Nielsen's opera Maskarade in 1998.
> See details here: (Maskarade is the first on the list)
> http://www.deccaclassics.com/artists/blomstedt/index.html#
> (Click on details link and read popup page- may not work in all
> browsers.)
> I have been unable to find even a single trace of this recording on any
> of the usual online sites:
> Amazon(US, DE, UK) or using a Froogle search, etc. I can search some
> more, but it doesn't look good. Does anyone know about this recording
> ? Was it any good ? Can we see a reissue any time soon ? Or was it
> never released at all? This one slipped below my radar completely if
> it was released at all. Anyone have a copy to burn for me ? That would
> be my last resort. I'd much rather get a legit copy.
> Alan Prichard

(2022 Y. upload):

"The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>
>
> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"

"Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".

Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.

On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
>
> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
>
> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.

You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.

Look it up.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
> >
> > "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
> >
> > Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
>
> Look it up.

Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.

Also it's stunning how your comments seem to address a troupe of straw men marching around in your head.
I know the word 'legendary' is morphing towards the synonym of "famous" i.e. "much talked about" (IRL Blomstedt is neither), and I do not have the illusion I can do anything to stop it, other than point out that "famous" is way shorter than "legendary".

On 12/25/2022 5:19 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
>>>
>>> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
>>>
>>> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
>> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
>>
>> Look it up.
>
> Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.

Google cites Oxford. The first definition is:

"of, described in, or based on legends"

It lists opposites as "factual," and historical."

Neither of them means "false" of "untrue." The essence of it is that legends are not documented not that they "exist in legend only)"

I don't know if the usage is changing. Do you have a source for that? I think people, including you, don't know what the word means.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 6:02:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> I think people, including you, don't
> know what the word means.

Herman doesn't even know from
which end to hold the bow!

dk

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 5:19 AM, Herman wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
> >>>
> >>> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
> >>>
> >>> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
> >> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
> >>
> >> Look it up.
> >
> > Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.
> Google cites Oxford. The first definition is:
>
> "of, described in, or based on legends"
>
> It lists opposites as "factual," and historical."
>
> Neither of them means "false" of "untrue." The essence of it is that legends are not documented not that they "exist in legend only)"
>
> I don't know if the usage is changing. Do you have a source for that? I think people, including you, don't know what the word means.

I am by U training a linguist (of a couple historical languages). The "existing in legend only" are not my words, but from the Oxford dictionary, and yes, I happen to think that is the original essence. I cannot help but think (and I don't mean this unkindly) you are somewhat confused here. I don't know why you bring in "documented". Many legends have been written down and printed in modern times, which would mean they have been documented. And they could still be about long ago things that never happened in the documented form, which is why they're called legend.

And yes, I know what the word "usage" means, and in the case of "legendary" it's clearly changing. In that it increasingly just means "famous" when they say "legendary".

On 12/25/2022 12:06 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/25/2022 5:19 AM, Herman wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
>>>>>
>>>>> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
>>>> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
>>>>
>>>> Look it up.
>>>
>>> Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.
>> Google cites Oxford. The first definition is:
>>
>> "of, described in, or based on legends"
>>
>> It lists opposites as "factual," and historical."
>>
>> Neither of them means "false" of "untrue." The essence of it is that legends are not documented not that they "exist in legend only)"
>>
>> I don't know if the usage is changing. Do you have a source for that? I think people, including you, don't know what the word means.
>
> I am by U training a linguist (of a couple historical languages). The "existing in legend only" are not my words, but from the Oxford dictionary, and yes, I happen to think that is the original essence. I cannot help but think (and I don't mean this unkindly) you are somewhat confused here. I don't know why you bring in "documented". Many legends have been written down and printed in modern times, which would mean they have been documented. And they could still be about long ago things that never happened in the documented form, which is why they're called legend.
>
> And yes, I know what the word "usage" means, and in the case of "legendary" it's clearly changing. In that it increasingly just means "famous" when they say "legendary".

You don't even know what "documented" means.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 6:35:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 12:06 PM, Herman wrote:
> >
> You don't even know what "documented" means.

well, Frank, hopefully you have a great day today.

On 12/25/2022 1:18 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 6:35:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/25/2022 12:06 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>
>> You don't even know what "documented" means.
>
> well, Frank, hopefully you have a great day today.

Same to you, Herman.

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 04:06:13 UTC+11, Herman wrote:

To my mind the word "legendary" means someone who was super-famous, and is either dead, or towards the end of an illustrious career. The word "famous" generally means someone extant (might also be deceased) who is well known, among other well known people. An example might be Frank Sinatra (legendary), Cab Calloway (well known). The word legendary is a whole different ball game to the word famous.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 12/25/2022 6:23 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 04:06:13 UTC+11, Herman wrote:
>
> To my mind the word "legendary" means someone who was super-famous, and is either dead, or towards the end of an illustrious career. The word "famous" generally means someone extant (might also be deceased) who is well known, among other well known people. An example might be Frank Sinatra (legendary), Cab Calloway (well known). The word legendary is a whole different ball game to the word famous.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

I don't think anyone would disagree with this usage. Though whether someone is legendary in this sense could be a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call Blomstedt legendary, but can see someone else doing so.

Frank wrote
> I don't think anyone would disagree with this usage. Though whether someone is legendary in this sense could be a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call Blomstedt legendary, but can see someone else doing so.

The context may explain it: the documentary is about Blomstedt's return visit in 2021 with the Oslo Philharmonic, whose chief conductor he was in the 1960s. At one point in it, he jokingly asks the musicians "Do you remember....? Although he makes a point of coming back to "his" orchestras now and then, he is "legendary" for current members as an international star whom they heard stories about from their "musical grandparents" who played in the same orchestra long ago. Oslo was his first foreign position, a smaller and much less important orchestra than now.

A linguistic point: in the film Blomstedt rehearses in Swedish with an occasional Norwegian word where there are differences between the two languages, except when he by mistake once starts to talk German. This surprised me as Scandinavian orchestras now have many recent immigrants who don't know the local languages well. I expected him to use English, but like many Scandinavians he may want to encourage us to trust that Swedish-Danish-Norwegian can be understood across our borders.

Half a year after his visit to Oslo, Blomstedt had a nasty fall (at least for a 95-year old) but made a comeback after several months. He now needs assistance to walk and conducts sitting. From the waist up he seemed totally his old self when I attended one of his concerts in Stockholm this autumn. Rather cleverly, the orchestra did not come on stage until it was time to begin, and he could walk up to the podium half-hidden among them and supported by one musician.

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 17:10:31 UTC+11, Nils-Göran Olve wrote:
> Frank wrote
> > I don't think anyone would disagree with this usage. Though whether someone is legendary in this sense could be a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call Blomstedt legendary, but can see someone else doing so.
> The context may explain it: the documentary is about Blomstedt's return visit in 2021 with the Oslo Philharmonic, whose chief conductor he was in the 1960s. At one point in it, he jokingly asks the musicians "Do you remember...? Although he makes a point of coming back to "his" orchestras now and then, he is "legendary" for current members as an international star whom they heard stories about from their "musical grandparents" who played in the same orchestra long ago. Oslo was his first foreign position, a smaller and much less important orchestra than now.
>
> A linguistic point: in the film Blomstedt rehearses in Swedish with an occasional Norwegian word where there are differences between the two languages, except when he by mistake once starts to talk German. This surprised me as Scandinavian orchestras now have many recent immigrants who don't know the local languages well. I expected him to use English, but like many Scandinavians he may want to encourage us to trust that Swedish-Danish-Norwegian can be understood across our borders.
>
> Half a year after his visit to Oslo, Blomstedt had a nasty fall (at least for a 95-year old) but made a comeback after several months. He now needs assistance to walk and conducts sitting. From the waist up he seemed totally his old self when I attended one of his concerts in Stockholm this autumn.. Rather cleverly, >the orchestra did not come on stage until it was time to begin, and he could walk up to the podium half->hidden among them and supported by one musician.

My last Sibelius cycle was Blomstedt's with the SFSO, and along with Berglund's efforts, perhaps even finer, it is now my favourite. Along with his Dresden LvB cycle (big band) but still wonderful, a very good Nielsen with SFSO, and some fine Hindemith with them, he is virtually legendary in the conducting world. Whichever way one wants to spin it.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 7:10:31 AM UTC+1, Nils-Göran Olve wrote:
> Frank wrote
> > I don't think anyone would disagree with this usage. Though whether someone is legendary in this sense could be a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call Blomstedt legendary, but can see someone else doing so.
> The context may explain it: the documentary is about Blomstedt's return visit in 2021 with the Oslo Philharmonic, whose chief conductor he was in the 1960s. At one point in it, he jokingly asks the musicians "Do you remember...? Although he makes a point of coming back to "his" orchestras now and then, he is "legendary" for current members as an international star whom they heard stories about from their "musical grandparents" who played in the same orchestra long ago. Oslo was his first foreign position, a smaller and much less important orchestra than now.
>
Thank you for this. Well, this is exactly the kind of "legendary" I was talking about: someone they had heard stories about from the previous generations.

Sorry to hear about his injury at this ripe old age...

On 2022-12-25 17:06, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/25/2022 5:19 AM, Herman wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
>>>>>
>>>>> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
>>>> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are, by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
>>>>
>>>> Look it up.
>>>
>>> Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.
>> Google cites Oxford. The first definition is:
>>
>> "of, described in, or based on legends"
>>
>> It lists opposites as "factual," and historical."
>>
>> Neither of them means "false" of "untrue." The essence of it is that legends are not documented not that they "exist in legend only)"
>>
>> I don't know if the usage is changing. Do you have a source for that? I think people, including you, don't know what the word means.
>
> I am by U training a linguist (of a couple historical languages). The "existing in legend only" are not my words, but from the Oxford dictionary, and yes, I happen to think that is the original essence. I cannot help but think (and I don't mean this unkindly) you are somewhat confused here. I don't know why you bring in "documented". Many legends have been written down and printed in modern times, which would mean they have been documented. And they could still be about long ago things that never happened in the documented form, which is why they're called legend.
>
> And yes, I know what the word "usage" means, and in the case of "legendary" it's clearly changing. In that it increasingly just means "famous" when they say "legendary".

It's idiom.

See also "legend in his lifetime"

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/legend+in+his+own+lifetime

--
- Alex Brown

Op 2022-12-25 om 11:29 schreef Herman:
> Also it's stunning how your comments seem to address a troupe of straw men marching around in your head.
> I know the word 'legendary' is morphing towards the synonym of "famous" i.e. "much talked about" (IRL Blomstedt is neither), and I do not have the illusion I can do anything to stop it, other than point out that "famous" is way shorter than "legendary".

BTW is "fabulous" the same as "legendary"?

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 12:37:18 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> Op 2022-12-25 om 11:29 schreef Herman:
> > Also it's stunning how your comments seem to address a troupe of straw men marching around in your head.
> > I know the word 'legendary' is morphing towards the synonym of "famous" i.e. "much talked about" (IRL Blomstedt is neither), and I do not have the illusion I can do anything to stop it, other than point out that "famous" is way shorter than "legendary".
> BTW is "fabulous" the same as "legendary"?

I'm expecting something will be said about the use of dictionaries in the upcoming Dec Stats, Satire.

On 2022-12-26 08:30:17 +0000, Alex Brown said:

> On 2022-12-25 17:06, Herman wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 12/25/2022 5:19 AM, Herman wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:54 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 12/25/2022 4:55 AM, Herman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 10:26:09 AM UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The legendary conductor Herbert Blomstedt (documentary)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Legendary" primarily means "existing in legend (only)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blomstedt is alive and well, you can go to a Blomstedt concert.
>>>>> You quoted your definition as if you took from some (presumably
>>>>> reputable) source. I suspect you made it up. Legends (and Myths) are,
>>>>> by definition, neither true nor false, real nor imaginary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look it up.
>>>>
>>>> Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Fowler and Fowler.
>>> Google cites Oxford. The first definition is:
>>>
>>> "of, described in, or based on legends"
>>>
>>> It lists opposites as "factual," and historical."
>>>
>>> Neither of them means "false" of "untrue." The essence of it is that
>>> legends are not documented not that they "exist in legend only)"
>>>
>>> I don't know if the usage is changing. Do you have a source for that? I
>>> think people, including you, don't know what the word means.
>>
>> I am by U training a linguist (of a couple historical languages). The
>> "existing in legend only" are not my words, but from the Oxford
>> dictionary, and yes, I happen to think that is the original essence. I
>> cannot help but think (and I don't mean this unkindly) you are somewhat
>> confused here. I don't know why you bring in "documented". Many legends
>> have been written down and printed in modern times, which would mean
>> they have been documented. And they could still be about long ago
>> things that never happened in the documented form, which is why they're
>> called legend.
>>
>> And yes, I know what the word "usage" means, and in the case of
>> "legendary" it's clearly changing. In that it increasingly just means
>> "famous" when they say "legendary".
>
> It's idiom.
>
> See also "legend in his lifetime"
>
> https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/legend+in+his+own+lifetime

"He's a legend in his own mind"
-Clint Eastwood/ Dirty Harry

Op 2022-12-26 om 12:54 schreef Herman:
> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 12:37:18 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>> Op 2022-12-25 om 11:29 schreef Herman:
>>> Also it's stunning how your comments seem to address a troupe of straw men marching around in your head.
>>> I know the word 'legendary' is morphing towards the synonym of "famous" i.e. "much talked about" (IRL Blomstedt is neither), and I do not have the illusion I can do anything to stop it, other than point out that "famous" is way shorter than "legendary".
>> BTW is "fabulous" the same as "legendary"?
>
> I'm expecting something will be said about the use of dictionaries in the upcoming Dec Stats, Satire.

I was wondering if the Ultimate Classical Music Guide is legendary, or
fabulous, or just famous.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:50:06 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>
> I was wondering if the Ultimate Classical Music Guide is legendary, or
> fabulous, or just famous.

It's absolutely ultimate.

On 12/26/2022 1:00 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:50:06 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if the Ultimate Classical Music Guide is legendary, or
>> fabulous, or just famous.
>
> It's absolutely ultimate.

We are all ultimately legendary.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/26/2022 1:00 PM, Herman wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:50:06 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> >>
> >> I was wondering if the Ultimate Classical Music Guide is legendary, or
> >> fabulous, or just famous.
> >
> > It's absolutely ultimate.
> We are all ultimately legendary.
I'll read that as a humorous riff on an oft-cited remark by Keynes...

On 12/26/2022 8:02 PM, number_six wrote:
> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/26/2022 1:00 PM, Herman wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:50:06 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if the Ultimate Classical Music Guide is legendary, or
>>>> fabulous, or just famous.
>>>
>>> It's absolutely ultimate.
>> We are all ultimately legendary.
> I'll read that as a humorous riff on an oft-cited remark by Keynes...

Well done.