On 12/25/22 10:37 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:

>
> 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

Excellent choices every one. We may disagree about politics, but in more
important matters....:).

Bob Harper

On 12/26/22 12:30 AM, Alex Brown wrote:
> 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
>
Or, snarkily, 'a legend in his own mind'.

Bob Harper

On 12/26/22 8:14 AM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> 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
>
I hadn't remembered where that came from. Thanks.

Bob Harper