julian_freeman's profile

Go Walsingham

The piano performance of Bull's Walsingham Variations makes this recording worth obtaining with repeated listening. Rarely performed on the piano, this instrument and a competent performance bring out otherwise-hidden qualities of this superb composition that is easily missed in the more common harpsichord, virginal, and organ performances. The composition is masterpiece of music as complex clockwork, and not at all typical of Bull's other work. It is unfortunate that the sheet music for Walsingham is not provided for simultaneous viewing. Without that and its indications from Bull of the original fingering pattern for the music, it is difficult to appreciate how complex is this clockwork interaction of all parts in the music. The overall concept in the DVD, as explained by the artist in his internet presentation of the background of the concert, is that Bach had interesting precessors. This of course is very true. The usually cited predecessors (JCF Fischer, J Pachelbel, D Buxtehude, A Vivaldi) are individuals who where direct or indirect teachers of JS Bach or contemporaries of his, whose work he clearly was educated by or in, whom he emulated, copied, or whose work and ideas Bach incorporated in his own work. The intellectual reach to Sweelink and Bull is much more indirect and conceptual, but not incorrect, at least in a conceptual sense. With Bull's Walsingham variation, the link as a precessor to JS Bach is much more indirect and much less obvious. Bull's Walsingham uses a construction technique very different from that found in any of Bach's work (other than the tonality, and harmonic structure). This set of variations, almost entirely, is a complex interaction of two or more thematic lines with the main "tune", theme, and harmonies jumping back and forth between concurrent, interweaving melodic and rhythmic lines. It creates a number of possible interpertations for the piece, depending on the detils of how these lines or meshing gears are interwoven. This performance is one of a number of fine possibilities. The technique has been used elsewhere, including in music (Tchaikovsky for example in brief orchesteral sections), an occasional musical performance, and above all in electronic, message, and secure data transmission coding. Its use as the basic structure of an entire piece of music or an entire variation is exceptional, and very successful in Walsingham (all spymasters aside). Also not usually found in JS Bach's work, the title of this work is a hidden pun. In addition to being based on the old Walsingham pilgrmage tune, Lord Walsingham was the Elizabethan chief inquisitor and chief of counter-espionage, whose mission it was to eliminate individuals like John Bull from England. The performance of the title piece, Goldberg Variations, is different from many, quite contemplative, and perhaps interesting.

Don't get this blower.

Cute, muti-position design. Noisy, relatively low air flow for size. One unit defective out of box: blower "impeller" or squirrel cage had too much wobble free-play, scrapes the sides of the housing in most positions. No diagrams to aid disassembly, repair, no repair parts available. Have not tried to disassemble to see if problem can be corrected, but looks like it will not be easy... to repair and reassemble as a functional blower. Weight is "medium" ... it would be just right if it had high airflow output and needed mass for ballast. But for the weak airflow it generates, the weight is more than is needed. Manual does not even state CFM or have any diagrams for assembly if you want to repair or clean it. The lack of CFM statement in the advertising should have been the tip-off of very low quality. Overall design philosophy seems to focus on a cute appearance that "should" work, but when push comes to shove, it fails and can only be tossed. It is cute, but with low air flow for size, high noise, poor assembly and parts quality, and failure right out of the box with high cost of shipment for warranty repair, the entire product line seems like one to avoid.

Not worth $1.

Proved to be nearly useless. Relatively heavy and hard to push, can not throw the snow far enough to be much help. Can only throw snow straight ahead, but not very far, and not high enough to be useful. Hand shoveling and working slowly was much easier and more effective than using the unit.