Slashdot Mirror
Pianist Asks Washington Post To Remove Review Under "Right To Be Forgotten"
Goatbert writes with word that pianist Dejan Lazic, unhappy with the opinion of Post music critic Anne Midgette, "has asked the Washington Post to remove an old review from their site in perhaps the best example yet of why it is both a terrible ruling and concept."
It’s the first request The Post has received under the E.U. ruling. It’s also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work. “To wish for such an article to be removed from the internet has absolutely nothing to do with censorship or with closing down our access to information,” Lazic explained in a follow-up e-mail to The Post. Instead, he argued, it has to do with control of one’s personal image — control of, as he puts it, “the truth.”
(Here is the 2010 review to which Lazic objects.)
when the pianist succeeds. This is clearly a case where the "right to be forgotten" conflicts public interest.
Sure. Remove the Google link to the bad review.
And every other link to the guy. Forever.
No more searches on him, for the entire rest of his performing career.
It's the only way to keep that review from sneaking back into future search results.
Overwhelmingly you are going to have people with mis deeds wanting to have those deleted from history. Just imagine the Enron principals decide to emigrate and have their histories expunged ?
This is not at all an example of why this a bad ruling or not. It is just yet another example of an asshole trying to abuse the legal system, the Post should just reject this silly request and focus on real inquiries.
I wonder if they are knowedgable of the Streisand effect and the Slashdot effect. If not, they will know now. LOL. The news of the request is more important news than any old review they were trying to escape.
The truth shall set you free!
Then you were unknown; now you're universally known as The Bad Pianist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm shocked, I tell you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.
Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.
His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.
It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.
Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.
Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.
The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
That is only true because this is still a novelty. When other people and companies jump onboard, google will be deluged with hundreds of thousands of requests from everything from microsoft to restaurants to politicians. At that point no one will be paying attention. This needs to get fixed, ASAP.
It was as though some huge force were pressing down upon you â" something that penetrated inside your skull, battering against your brain, frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllableâ¦what then?
Seems like this guy is like a loser on an "Only the winner keeps their cash" game show. You can't block it from being shown... perform in public and suck and you've left a mark. How to get rid of that? Do something else successfully then claim what you did poorly isn't a good test of your talent.
... I want /. to take down any posts where I have been called an asshole.
tyvm
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
What is the Washington (as in Washington, DC, USA, North America) Post supposed to do about a law from the European Union?
Before this request few had ever heard of him, now he's famous. Could this have been the desired outcome? (Like marketing Streisands house without paying to list it on the MLS)
You do NOT have a RIGHT to control your public image. A public image is something that emerges from HOW you perform in public.
You do NOT have a RIGHT to not have your religion, beliefs, politics offended.
You CAN be just as misguided, idiotic, self absorbed as you want to be as long as I am not forced to change my behaviors to accommodate your stupid world views.
The way I see it, I DO have the RIGHT to see, believe, read, write, learn, say, do what I want want if it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to do the same. If you do not agree with that, then we have a problem.
Letter To Iran
.. "What a completely forgettable performance!"
There - no more need for Dejan to file "Right to be forgotten" requests.
It's also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work.
Yes, but not of how it does work. Libel law could work exactly the same way, but it doesn't.
It is important to find cases where this ruling does cause problems, so we can amend or reverse it. Pointing out cases where it could result in legally enforced removal of information that is in the public interest, but almost certainly won't, is crying wolf and is harmful to the goal of reforming the ruling.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This being WaPo, I trust them about as much as I trust the Enquirer saying that Elvis has been spotted in an Austin Denny's.
...we could erase all the bad in the world and leave only the good.
Except bad and good are entirely subjective terms.
Does anyone else find it ironic when a music critic accuses a performer of "grandiloquence"? The critic's whole job is to say whether or not a performance sounded good in the most pompous and roundabout way possible.
Am I the only one who actually laughed out loud at the utter pretentiousness of this review?
detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet.
Amazing. It tells me absolutely nothing except that the writer is in love with her own prose. It's a shame Mr. Lazic couldn't see this review with the proper humor and irreverence it deserves. I think I'd wear it as a badge of honor if I was criticized with this sort of pomposity. Instead, he's gone and done something for which he should be rightfully shamed - much worse than an apparently decent but lackluster performance.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Sparks but no flame: Pianist Dejan Lazic at Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater
By Anne Midgette
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2010; 5:32 PM
Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.
Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.
His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.
It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.
Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.
Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.
The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.
... you do make some BOLD uppercase statements.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
True, you do not have a right to control the view of your public image. However, though I think âoeRight to be forgotten" is not how he should be going about ie, it would be okay for him to sue her for slander.
That should be a heads-up to her, that he grandiloquence is out of control. It also occurs to me that if anyone should be suing to be forgotten, it should be her: her essay was not only graceless, it went overboard with gracelessness. She could have been much more discreet -- praised his skill, noted that he spent too much effort on playacting, noting that he did not get an encore.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
is that the review has within it significant amount of praise, and the criticism is mostly constructive. The pianist should have taken this as a learning opportunity more than anything else. The critic closes the review with what is basically an encouragement for the pianist to not limit his considerable aptitude at the keys to mere showmanship, and to strive for true greatness. I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has. If the former, he has no one to blame but himself, and more recent reviews would probably be in line with this one--so why single it out? If the latter, then this review should not be seen as a black mark on his career, but a historical point of reference and a symbol of his continued improvement--so again, why try to hide it? The trappings of the ego often end up working against its owner.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
It wasn't even a bad review. I mean, it wasn't a *wonderful* review, but it still said that the pianist was incredibly proficient at his craft; he just needs to stop being fixated on impressing everyone with how good he is every single minute and allow for some calmness, some reflection, and some humility.
So, appropriately enough, the self-obsessed twerp is complaining that the review wasn't good enough for his tastes.
That's a little bit more than fair use, and you didn't credit your source. So I guess it's copyright violation and plagiarism. That may have to be removed from this website, if the Washington Post objects to it.
This reminds me of a rerun of a 70s TV show. In this episode the King was about to be deposed by his right-hand-man but the tables turned and his former adviser wound up dying and admitting he was wrong.
The King said that nobody would be punished and that the events of that day would be erased from history.
My thought was "no, you idiot, those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
But Midgette's pretensious prose parrots Lazic's performance, presumably.
Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.
Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.
His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.
It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.
Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.
Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.
The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.
It amuses me that this was modded 'offtopic'. This is the text of the review in question. I don't think anything could be more on topic. Sigh.
I find it ironic that the full text of the article in question is currently moderated "off topic".
How are we to know what motivated the pianist? One effect has been to shine a light on this review.
Requiem for the American Dream
I've heard Lazic's recitals, and I must say, this review perfectly describes them. All of them. The man is talented, certainly, but fails to produce even the slightest musical effect on the listener. His play is a waste of great pianistic control - all that control and virtuosism bring about nothing of substantial value.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Ah shit, too late, WaPo. I've already read it. In fact, hate to spoil your day, but the entire text has just been "copied" to millions of computers. Every single person who loaded this page now has a copy of it in their internet cache.
It sucks to be stuck in yesteryear when you had to copy stuff in longhand. Go stick your finger in a dike and try to stop technology. Mr. Lazic, you dumb shit, meet Ms. Streisand.
If he wants to be forgotten then "forget him".
Invoking the right to be forgotten should not be selective.
Flush it all and let us not visit this again.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Only someone very clueless would think slander has the slightest bit to do with OPINION.
Do you work for the WaPo?
... the idea is European! So it must be purely good and wonderful!
Humility in bold, is this some sort of joke?
The problem of course comes not when you download it, but when it's placed on a /. server so that people can dowload it from there, rather than from the WaPo site. This is, like, remedial piracy.
Penises right to be forgotten?
People hire organizations to control their public image all the time through social media and the press. Anyone with significant funds most definitely can control their public image if they do so wish.
You do NOT have a RIGHT to control your public image.
The European Union disagrees.
I've seen a game I worked on reviewed by someone who obviously had no interested in reviewing it seriously. That game represented nearly two years of very hard work for me and a reasonably sized team of developers. I'm pretty sure the reviewer shat out that review in a few hours. Of course, since the game was in a genre he admittedly didn't care for to begin with, he not surprisingly didn't find it to his liking, and instead peppered the review with lame and bizarre jokes.
Yeah, reviews are sometimes harsh or unfair, and of course, they're massively subjective, but there's not a lot you can do about that. We made our share of mistakes during development as well - the game certainly wasn't perfect, and it's important to take criticisms to heart and try to improve yourself so that you can displace those old, less-flattering reviews with new, glowing ones.
Still, Lazic should really learn that lesson and focus on improving his performance rather than fretting about old reviews.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
The European Union disagrees.
The EU couldn't get negative rights straight if one hit it over its head.
Statists who love entitlements love to call them "rights" because "rights" have popular support.
The EU has created an entitlement to be forgotten, not a right, no matter what they call it. It's easy to tell the two apart - a right requires simply leaving a person alone - an entitlement requires a third party to provide a good or service, customarily under some threat of retribution for not doing so.
That's exactly what the EU has done - it forces somebody at the media outlet to remove a bit of data, without compensation - call it servitude or conscription, depending on your perspective, to provide a benefit to the person making the complaint.
Compare that with the right to free speech, the right to practice religion, the right to be free from searches - they all require the person to be left alone, and no third party is pressed into service.
Malarkey like TFA is what happens when people start thinking that entitlements are right - in an area where no entitlement has even been created, people who've heard about the EU's folly start thinking they have a right to another's labor. That kind of thinking is not alien to the US, though it's gone out of favor in the last century and a half, at least in the direct sense.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Did anybody notice...the linked article about the removal request...was a Washington Post article? And this article prominently displays a link to the original review. It doesn't seem the request for removal is having the desired effect.
someone searching for nazi information would know about the law ad use a service that isn't bound by it.
Guess what? He's not in elementary school, where everything he does gets a gold star. He's in the real world now, where people are free to dislike what he does, and to report on why they didn't like it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
Life isn't kind, it isn't pretty, and it isn't fair.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
From the text, it looks like the critic's whole job is to say that the performance was flawed, no matter how skilled it was, in as loquacious a manner as possible.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You seem pretty cocksure of yourself with your parallel construction with so many words in boldface and caps.
Do *you* perform for paying audiences in public? Can your livelihood be substantially affected by critical reviews, or are you proposing a standard that you would never have to live up to yourself? I call that being an asshole.
and kill every idiot who makes one of these requests.
I've always heard that classical music is judged on two merits, both technical expertise, and how evocative it is played.
;)
A combination of hitting the right notes at the right time properly, and a personal touch that inspires emotional responses.
I'm not that discriminator (or anal) and put it into the category of how much I like it or not.
It sounds to me like that reviewer was saying his technical skill is high, but his ability to inspire emotions is either lacking, or sometimes aimed at the wrong ones.
Heck, I'd be happy is someone said I could play an instrument well. (Will never happen, but still...)
A judge in one of the EU countries has already slapped down a "right to be forgotten" case trying to eliminate a bad review already. I believe he stated that the review was in the public interest and that was greater than the value to society of the subject being pissed over a bad review. (Or something like that. Not sure, but I think it was a German case. I'm not going to try and google it, but you can if you want.)
It's a review of his music, not him as a person, 2 separate things.
Him as a person? He's an asshole and a fucktard - and no, I won't take it back, and I won't delete the post.
So he can just go fuck himself, it ain't gonna happen.
The winners have always been able to rewrite history to suit them. These (very) few years of the Internet keeping semi-accurate track have been an anomaly. It isn't a given that it will be allowed to continue.
Orwell was an optimist.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...and you did!
What defines 'evocative'? And what defines a 'personal touch' other than an intentional or unintentional deviation from the score as written? Is there a variant of the Turing test in which we judge if a piece of music is played by a human or a machine?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Dejan Lazic has obviously never heard of the "Streisand Effect"... I wonder how many people who had never heard of him, now consider him to be a complete asshole, and will avoid any of his content like the plague?
Dumbass.
Alessandra Mussolini will petition the EU for the right of her grandfather (Benito) to be forgotten? Lots of negative comments out there about him.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
The music as it is written is an imprecise rendering of the composer's intent. He or she intends it to be played a certain way and can't fully describe it in musical notation. It's like the script of a play. How the artist plays the notes or says the words matters. The performer that plays it is supposed to discern the intent and represent it, but is (perhaps by intent but unavoidably anyway), evoking the style and expression that were in the composer's mind. It is possible for an expert performer to exceed what the composer intended and produce something better, or to fail to perceive the composer's intent and produce something not as good.
Ms. Midgette is telling you that in her opinion, the performer didn't do justice to the work.
So if he moves to denmark so he can get crack legally... And files a right to be forgotten request, imagine all the great comedy videos we would lose?
"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt" What's the point of Wayback Machine if sites can just block it with a robots.txt?
Slander? What statements were made that were a) facts and b) untrue? Also, I believe you meant 'libel', as this is in print.
Whoops. I missed the part where the person you were replying to said slander. I thus interpreted your comment exactly backward--it should apply to the person you responded to, not you. Sorry about that!
their involvement in the holocaust was all in the past and shouldn't effect their life now
You're right! I say we hang the bastard and prevent their life from being effected any longer!
Dejan Lazic went from being obscure to being world famous for the wrong reason, now he will remain in the memories of people as a person not able to take criticism.
How many did know of him before this story?
Who will hire him for a concert now?
If I wanted an obnoxious person-centered musician with an ego the size of Mount Everest I would hire Prince.
If I wanted a piano player that is fun to watch I'd take Robert Wells instead.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I don't remember writing a review about... what did you say your name was again? Never heard of you.
Hopefully cases like this will spark a discussion about updating the ruling. Like a person trying to invoke the right to be forgotten having to show a thorough effort in removing his person from the internet himself - putting down his own homepage would be a start.
This ruling was created for people in distress that are facing real-life mistreatment, stalking etc they'll be fine with shutting down their facebook profiles (that's the first thing they are going to do anyway). At the same time jokers like this pianist won't get to misuse the ruling.
I love how the review gives him glowing accolades on his technical abilities and then rips him up...
"The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged. "
A laugh riot. Ms. Streisand is rolling over in her grave...oh, wait...
It's the pompous writing about the self-important.
One day a man walks into a bar and to his amazement, he finds a tiny person playing a tiny piano. Stunned, the man asked the bartender where he got this amazing person. The bartender replied that inside the closet there is a genie that will grant him a single wish.
The man dashed into the the closet and as the bartender said, there was a genie inside. Without hesitation the man wished for a million bucks.
But instead, 1 million ducks instantly appeared, quacking up a storm and making a ruckus. Infuriated, the man rushed to the bartender and screamed, "I think your genie is hard of hearing, I asked for a million bucks but instead I got a million ducks."
The bartender shook his head and replied, "You're telling me... Do you really think I really asked for a 12 inch pianist?"
Table-ized A.I.
A combination of hitting the right notes
But not necessarily in the right order.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What review/game is that then? Bad reviews are just fun to read and say more about the publication than the product. Bet it's IGN lol.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I've heard Lazic's recitals, and I must say, this review perfectly describes them. All of them. The man is talented, certainly, but fails to produce even the slightest musical effect on the listener. His play is a waste of great pianistic control - all that control and virtuosism bring about nothing of substantial value.
You'll be getting RtbF notice next.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
This is such small potatoes. Russian olicharchs are paying millions to mostly American law firms to scourge the internet and write cease and dissist letters to any sites hosting negative articles about themselves and their allies.
Really, a single pianist is *not* the issue here.
...in a few hours.
Not to argue with you, considering I know a grand total of nothing about your situation, but how long do you expect the guy to spend on the review? A few hours doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
>EU's folly start thinking they have a right to another's labor.
That sounds a bit too Aynrandish.
I can see no attempt to establish a right to anyones labour. More of a right not to be negatively impacted by someone's labour, if you do insist on the term. I think that we can agree that if my labour consists of publicly spouting lies about you, you very much do have a right to stop that.
Whether or not this EU legislation is taking it a bit too far, and a bit too wide - that is another matter.
The Post can just deny the request same as Google does with many of the request
No need to go on to the extreme here.
ah so how come that guy in spain with court orders against him for debts - gets to remove things from the public record
Separate from the fact that the EU "right to be forgotten" is applicable to search engines and not the publishers; the Washington Post is a US publisher and thus not subject to EU laws.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
when the pianist succeeds. This is clearly a case where the "right to be forgotten" conflicts public interest.
That is every case. The winners rewriting the history books is a bad thing, period, the end. There are no exceptions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heh, yeah, it was IGN. I hope you don't mind, but I'd rather not say, as I'd prefer to stay somewhat anonymous. Plus, I don't want to bring my personal biases into things and draw more attention to the review itself, which I think is exactly the mistake I think Lazic made.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I was sort of including actually playing the game in that figure. Honestly, it wasn't a terrible review (7/10), but you could sort of tell the reviewer was sort of bored and rambling about a lot of non-related stuff, making bad puns, etc. It's just a bit frustrating when you've spent two years of your life working on something... well, you'd hope that whoever reviews your product at least makes a pretense at taking it seriously.
The point I was trying to make is, there's nothing you can do about it. Reviews are completely subjective, and obviously our game didn't grab his fancy enough to get a 8 or 9 instead of a 7. You may disagree with his result, but you can't really say it's "wrong". So, you grumble about it a bit with your co-workers over a beer, move on, and then try to improve things on your next project.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
parrots *pianist's performance, presumably
The EU has created an entitlement to be forgotten
No, it hasn't. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The right to be forgotten doesn't exist yet. It is a proposal for the updated data protection laws that are being worked on at the moment. These requests come under an older law, first introduced in 1995, that allows subjects to have some control over their data.
It was necessary because the EU recognized the danger of companies having huge databases of people's personal data, and sharing it. People would be denied insurance, bank accounts, mortgages and other services because of things that the companies offering those services has no legal right to know, but which could be bought from other companies. Medical history, financial history beyond the legally mandated time limits, spent criminal convictions, even things like prior religious affiliations or employment history. Worse still, there was no way to have errors in the data corrected, or have the data deleted if the subject ceased their relationship with an organization, with exceptions for things like the police and credit reference agencies.
it forces somebody at the media outlet to remove a bit of data
No, you are absolutely 100% wrong about that. You really do have no ideal at all what you are talking about. Organizations that create public records are exempt. Google is not such an organization, but newspapers and other media outlets are.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think a perfect example is the recordings of Wilhelm Kempff of Beethoven sonatas. You can find some with video on Youtube - on those there's an occasional misplaced note (it's an old man playing), yet the music is... beyond this world.
Take a MIDI-playback directly from the notes written by Beethoven and compare that to Kempff's performance.
Technical ability is the means to an end.
You can't demand to be forgotten without demanding that another person give up their rights to remember.
The so-called "right to be forgotten" is not a right. It's a demand that others limit their rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
Even if there was such a right, it would not promote a healthy society.
Such a "right" would mean prevent others from learning through the experience of others.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Too bad boy. In the U.S. we have "Freedom of the press", "Freedom of speech". You do not have any "Right to be forgotten".
The Washington Post is in the United States of America. There is no "Right to be forgotten" in the U.S.
Fine. You want people to forget you? Remove all the reviews, not just the bad ones.
You're looking at this thing the wrong way. The problem is that google has no right whatsoever to collect, store or distribute data about me (or you for that matter). Calling the "right to be forgotten" an entitlement is akin to calling habeas corpus an entitlement.
Why is this even an issue? Unless the Post is an International company with offices in Europe (maybe it is?) then this request should not apply at all. An EU ruling is not a worldwide mandate - much as they might like it to be.
Come on, now you're just showing off.
their involvement in the holocaust was all in the past and shouldn't effect their life now
You're right! I say we hang the bastard and prevent their life from being effected any longer!
http://xkcd.com/326/
That junior was given a word a day calendar and doesn't know how to use it.
DMCA takedown notice sent.
The Lang Lang effect, in other words.
Or, as Shakespeare might have put it, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
It is in fact INCREDIBLY rare for a performing musician not to hit the occasional wrong note. The invention of tape recording and subsequent editing has fooled people into expecting note perfection in public, which is almost unheard of.
Lazic, for all the purple prose in the 2010 review, sounds like an unfortunate modern phenomenon: the technically brilliant but musically shallow performer.
EU courts usually put a lot of emphasis on intent, and the intention of the law applied. And by a curious twist of logic, the intent of the law would dictate that the review holds.
The intent of the law is to keep people who are not regarded as public people from being dragged into the spotlight against their will. For reference, see Star Wars Kid. That's one of the things this law is supposed to keep from repeating. Now, if a performing artist claims by himself that he is not supposed to be of public interest, I guess that means he thinks the review (which is anything but bad, I should add) was too good and he doesn't deserve to be put into the spotlight.
What a truly humble person.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What defines 'evocative'? And what defines a 'personal touch' other than an intentional or unintentional deviation from the score as written? Is there a variant of the Turing test in which we judge if a piece of music is played by a human or a machine?
Here you are, at last. Been waiting for that. Every slashdot article needs a poster who complains "but who defines this and that? Who is to judge? "
Quite obviously it was the critic who decided, and since the newspaper didn't get complaints (and here in this thread there is half a dozen people agreeing and nobody that I saw disagreeing with her), that's it.
He'll be submitting a "Right to be forgotten" request on the Slashdot URL for this article to Google, as well as the URLs to all postings by other media and blogs. Followed by a demand that Slashdot take down the article and the comments page under RTBF
(N/T)
Had any of you ever hear of this guy before? Now you have. And the review in question was not ALL bad.
It's possible he really believes he's trying to improve his reputation by getting rid of a bad review, but it seems more likely that he figures he can gain more publicity and exposure by becoming a news story.
Congratulations on getting it.
You can't have anything you dislike removed. However if you're a lazy corporation or a corporation that relies on spying on people then it's in your interest to undermine the law and remove anything requested so the law looks stupid and you can avoid it all together. It doesn't take a genius to see what's happening.
Lazic, for all the purple prose in the 2010 review, sounds like an unfortunate modern phenomenon: the technically brilliant but musically shallow performer.
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
No, I actually meant to ask how one would judge if a piece of music were being played by a human or a machine programmed to be imperfect to some degree and just a bit off the tempo here and there.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Yes, the style of the prose is what most of us would consider to be pretentious. On the other hand, this is the language that reviews of things like symphonies, plays, and art shows use in big national papers like the Post and the Times. We can laugh at the text from our point of view, but keep in mind that the people who take these things seriously actually take these things seriously.
Fuck. Now i want to hear him play. I like some of those qualities he is "guilty" of. I love technical greatness.
Honestly, he should have just shrugged it off if it truly bothered him... or else is this is a concerted effort to have the Streisand effect applied to him. The worst thing that can happen to a performer is to be forgotten.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Had any of you ever hear of this guy before? Now you have. And the review in question was not ALL bad.
It's possible he really believes he's trying to improve his reputation by getting rid of a bad review, but it seems more likely that he figures he can gain more publicity and exposure by becoming a news story.
Good point, the review pretty much said he was extremely talented but just needed to polish up in a few areas and not be quite as showy.
Hardly a critical mauling.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The so-called "right to be forgotten" is not a right. It's a demand that others limit their rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
And who says that free speech and freedom of expression are "rights"?
They weren't found carved in stone by god. They're just concepts invented by human beings to improve life.
We could equally agree on a "right to be forgotten" without breaking the fabric of space-time.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No "let's just say I didn't ask for a twelve inch pianist" jokes here.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Then perhaps the Post's response should be: "Okay, but we're NEVER GOING TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT YOU AGAIN." News, upcoming concerts, etc. - forget it.
I can't believe anyone would take a critic seriously who writes phrases like "on the same spectrum".
... was this one.
Clap. Clap. Clap.
--- wad
Let me guess - your favorite book is Atlas Shrugged?