Comments on: Imani Winds: Choice But Brief

By: Bettina A. Norton

Bettina A. Norton — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:22:13 +0000

OK. I have to weigh in. Yes, I acquiesced to our Fearless Leader and allowed a change in the title. Boring, isn’t it?

I do wish I had written, “Imani Winds Not Wind Enough, Spoken Part Too Windy.”

As for the length of play, I can guess that the reviewer would have suggested 3/4 hour of playing, then a 15-minute intermission, then another 3/4 hour of more playing. Isn’t that fairly standard?

It’s like buying a strawberry ice cream cone and coming to find just one partial strawberry. Cheated.

By: Lee Eiseman

Lee Eiseman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:52:11 +0000

I found the title to be a bit confusing. I might have considered a title something like “Imani Too Windy”
as in long-winded if I wanted something cutesy. “Chicago is a windy city” refers to the verbosity of its pols. And yes, 1 hour of music is all that one often gets in a wind concert.

On the other hand, excessive talk can be annoying. Perhaps an intermission would have allowed for more music.
In any case, I have asked the editor to change the title.

By: TT

TT — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:35:47 +0000

Playing for an hour without an intermission seems quite enough to me regarding wind players. It takes a bit of stamina to puff into your instrument that whole time, especially with the energy the Imani Winds put into it.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:00:48 +0000

The headline for this blog “Imani Winds not Windy enough”, does not accurately reflect the blog entry itself, which goes out of its way to praise the ensemble, and rightfully so. If your “only complaint … is its brevity” then your title should not focus on it.