Freddy Kempf's Chopin Ballades
Nachtviolen
by Freddy Kempf. I think it is quite a marvellous one even though
there are some eccentric usage of rubato and inevitable "xylophonic"
Yamaha piano sound. Then I referred to two magazines I have purchased:
International Record Review and International Piano Quarterly. To my
surprise, the comments are quite different, especially the former,
which was written by Donald Manildi. He is a rather well-known piano
scholar and he thrashed this recording mercilessly. Though after
repeated listenings, I have to confess that I begin to understand some
of his crticism, I still don't think that the Kempf disc is only an
etude like disc to avoid. And Mr. Manildi strongly suggested that the
Moravec disc is much better, a comment again I can't agree with. I
think the Moravec performance though very beautiful here and there, is
rather out of focus and one gets lethargic when listening.
I would like to know what are your comments about the Kempf Ballades?
Thanks!
Nv
Samir Golescu
Freddy Kempf is a very good young pianist who deserves of encouragement. I
will not comment disparagingly on his playing, as I don't think he has
given yet his best on CD and he has many years in front of him. There is
genuine temperament and there is strong promise to his playing. However, I
have to strongly disagree with the comments on Moravec. If one gets
lethargic while listening Moravec, I much suspect the listener is out of
focus, not the pianist. What Moravec achieves is otherworldly, his daring
rubato is paradoxically based on a sense of timing and on a mastery of
rhythm second to none, and it is indeed cruel to compare *any* living
pianist's Chopin to his, in my opinion. Moravec is *the* living Chopinist
who stands comparison with the greatest of the past.
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
Intermittently exciting, especially in the obviously bravura sections, but
seriously lacking in "poetry" - lyrical grace, rubato, etc. - elsewhere.
The start of the fourth ballade is remarkably plain. On the whole the
negative comments I've read seem justified.
Simon
Raymond Hall
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020114...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
|
| have to strongly disagree with the comments on Moravec. If one gets
| lethargic while listening Moravec, I much suspect the listener is out of
| focus, not the pianist. What Moravec achieves is otherworldly, his daring
| rubato is paradoxically based on a sense of timing and on a mastery of
| rhythm second to none, and it is indeed cruel to compare *any* living
| pianist's Chopin to his, in my opinion. Moravec is *the* living Chopinist
| who stands comparison with the greatest of the past.
What you say of Moravec intrigues me, because I have just been listening to
a tape of him playing Oldrich F. Korte's Sonata for Piano (1951-53). Not
ostentatious music, but yet dynamic, and containing a wealth of ideas, in
two movements, and considered by many, according to the notes <g>, to be
amongst the finest piano works of the 20th century.
What struck me on first acquaintance was the complete projection, vivid
almost, of this piece, by Moravec's playing. If his Chopin is on a par with
the Korte I am hearing, then this could be the Chopin I want to hear.
Moravec's playing absolutely riveted one's attention.
Regarding Moravec. What are the qualities he possesses that stand out for
you, especially in Chopin? I am practically converted anyway <g>
And how does his recordings sound?
Many thanks.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/01
Dan Koren
Freddy Kempf lately seems intent on out-running and
out-banging Kissin. Their two sets of Chopin Ballades
compete for being the worst on record.
IMHO the best recent set of Chopin Ballades is by
Wendy Chen.
dk
Neil
>What Moravec achieves is otherworldly, his daring
>rubato is paradoxically based on a sense of timing and on a mastery of
>rhythm second to none, and it is indeed cruel to compare *any* living
>pianist's Chopin to his, in my opinion. Moravec is *the* living Chopinist
>who stands comparison with the greatest of the past.
Comparison on Moravaec with Freddy is utterly pointless as Samir rightly
suggests. I wonder why a reviewer would even consider it.
Simon Roberts
Samir didn't say it was "utterly pointless" but that it was cruel - a
rather different point. A reviewer ought to consider it because part of
what a reviewer does is to guide prospective purchasers, and part of that
guidance involves comparisons with other available recordings - one of
which, of course, is Moravec's. Unlike concerts, anyone who makes a
recording has to compete with previous recordings - is saying, in effect,
at least "I have something to say that's worth hearing and different from
everyone else." Not to compare a recording by a new/young artist to the
best that's available strikes me as incompetent reviewing and insulting to the
new artist.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
news:9g1EPFtqQMDDNK...@4ax.com:
> Comparison on Moravaec with Freddy is utterly pointless as Samir
> rightly suggests. I wonder why a reviewer would even consider it.
Because it's what reviewers do?
One of the irritating things about Gramophone in the old days was that
when multiple recordings of the same work came out in the same month,
they would spend much of the review space comparing them with one
another, and not with other available (or cutout) recordings of the work.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Raymond Hall wrote:
> What struck me on first acquaintance was the complete projection, vivid
> almost, of this piece, by Moravec's playing. If his Chopin is on a par with
> the Korte I am hearing, then this could be the Chopin I want to hear.
> Moravec's playing absolutely riveted one's attention.
I do not know the Korte piece/recording, but Moravec's Chopin (and for
that other composers) fits the bill.
> Regarding Moravec. What are the qualities he possesses that stand out for
> you, especially in Chopin?
The sonority is extraordinary beautiful, mellow, mellifluous. The fingers
are reaching deep and tender into the keys, even in fortissimo. The
voicings are both subtle and eloquent, not very far from Moiseiwitsch's
way of approaching voicing in piano-playing. The rubato is what I call
"multi-layered", i.e., not only deviations around a basic tempo, but with
conceiving sub-tempos-within-tempos, and deviations within each of those
subtempos. In this way, musical events are prioritized with outstanding
clarity, and, through a thoughtful choice of the way these agogic
evanescently deliquescent delicatessen [Matthew B Tepper alert (-:]
succeed one another, a sense of the direction in which the whole is moving
is rendered in full eloquence, without the sacrifice of any detail though.
The intensity of the direct emotional involvement is overwhelming as well.
> And how does his recordings sound?
Better than most of my other piano recordings, of course..... they are
stereo-schmereo, to begin with..... (not that I'd notice the
difference "anyways" [sic]) (-:
Now really, in many of Moravec's recordings, the piano sound is captured
in all its melodious glory.
regards,
SG
____________
"Wouldn't I be rich, if I were clever?"
Sholom Aleichem
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>I do not know the Korte piece/recording, but Moravec's Chopin (and for
>that other composers) fits the bill.
Moravec's Korte and Chopin are each wonderful but the Chopin is great
music. His Beethoven is excellent, as well.
>> And how does his recordings sound?
>
>Better than most of my other piano recordings, of course..... they are
>stereo-schmereo, to begin with..... (not that I'd notice the
>difference "anyways" [sic]) (-:
>
>Now really, in many of Moravec's recordings, the piano sound is captured
>in all its melodious glory.
Yup. E. Alan Silver, the producer of Connoisseur Society and many
Moravec discs was a master at recording the piano.
Kal
Matthew B. Tepper
news:pa694uclhbksuai13...@4ax.com:
Too bad he wasn't able to do much about quality control of the pressings.
Kalman Rubinson
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in
>news:pa694uclhbksuai13...@4ax.com:
>> Yup. E. Alan Silver, the producer of Connoisseur Society and many
>> Moravec discs was a master at recording the piano.
>
>Too bad he wasn't able to do much about quality control of the pressings.
Yup. The originals, especially the 45s, were fine but later pressings
were wildly variable. Until the CDs, of course.
Kal
Raymond Hall
|
| On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Raymond Hall wrote:
|
| > Regarding Moravec. What are the qualities he possesses that stand out
for
| > you, especially in Chopin?
|
| The sonority is extraordinary beautiful, mellow, mellifluous. The fingers
| are reaching deep and tender into the keys, even in fortissimo. The
| voicings are both subtle and eloquent, not very far from Moiseiwitsch's
| way of approaching voicing in piano-playing. The rubato is what I call
| "multi-layered", i.e., not only deviations around a basic tempo, but with
| conceiving sub-tempos-within-tempos, and deviations within each of those
| subtempos. In this way, musical events are prioritized with outstanding
| clarity, and, through a thoughtful choice of the way these agogic
| evanescently deliquescent delicatessen [Matthew B Tepper alert (-:]
| succeed one another, a sense of the direction in which the whole is moving
| is rendered in full eloquence, without the sacrifice of any detail though.
| The intensity of the direct emotional involvement is overwhelming as well.
Many thanks Samir. I'll definitely keep Moravec in mind when looking for
Chopin.
John Thomas
"Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020115...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
> |
> | On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Raymond Hall wrote:
> |
> | > Regarding Moravec. What are the qualities he possesses that stand out
> for
> | > you, especially in Chopin?
> |
> | The sonority is extraordinary beautiful, mellow, mellifluous. The fingers
> | are reaching deep and tender into the keys, even in fortissimo. The
> | voicings are both subtle and eloquent, not very far from Moiseiwitsch's
> | way of approaching voicing in piano-playing. The rubato is what I call
> | "multi-layered", i.e., not only deviations around a basic tempo, but with
> | conceiving sub-tempos-within-tempos, and deviations within each of those
> | subtempos. In this way, musical events are prioritized with outstanding
> | clarity, and, through a thoughtful choice of the way these agogic
> | evanescently deliquescent delicatessen [Matthew B Tepper alert (-:]
> | succeed one another, a sense of the direction in which the whole is moving
> | is rendered in full eloquence, without the sacrifice of any detail though.
> | The intensity of the direct emotional involvement is overwhelming as well.
>
> Many thanks Samir. I'll definitely keep Moravec in mind when looking for
> Chopin.
Some of his Connoisseur Society/VAI recordings have just been reissued
on Supraphon http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=4479
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
jwth...@sonic.net
John Gavin
influence of Michelangeli in Moravec's playing, particularly in
Moravec's non-percussive sound. He studied for a period with ABM.
Samir Golescu
Indeed I do not agree, but how is that of any help?.... (/:
HenryFogel
>From: jg...@webtv.net (John Gavin)
>Date: 1/15/2002 5:16 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <28896-3C...@storefull-211.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Samir will probably not agree with me, but I've always heard the
>influence of Michelangeli in Moravec's playing, particularly in
>Moravec's non-percussive sound. He studied for a period with ABM.
>
I can't say whether Samir would agree with you, but I can give you more
important support: Moravec would agree with you. Moravec has on more than one
occasion referred to Michelangeli as his pianistic idol, and as having the
strongest influence on him.
I'm listening, right now in fact, to a new Hanssler CD featuring a live recital
of Moravec at the Prague 2000 Spring Festival; it is wonderful. A Haydn D
Major Sonata, Janacek Sonata, Janacek In the Mist, some Chopin Preludes and
then Debussy and Chopin encores. Gorgeous playing.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
sound generally fine, though Moravec told me that he would like to remake some
of the repertoire now (I interviewed him a couple of months ago after his
Carnegie Hall concert and it will post shortly). For example, he revealed that
he decided not to include his marvelous Appassionata Sonata on the Beethoven
disc because a certain critic (who shall remain nameless) took him to task for
omitting a repeat, and while he does not think this was "wrong" at the time, he
would like to do it over with the offending repeat included. So hang on to those
VAI's if you have them!
Haenssler just released a new disc of Janacek, Haydn, and Chopin, and I will
spend a couple of days this weekend with him in Cannes, since on Sunday we're
presenting him with a lifetime achievement award at the Cannes Classical Awards.
There are new recording plans "in the air," and if anything definite comes of
them while I'm there I'll post the news here for your information. I suspect it
will take some time, as he is extremely sensitive about his working conditions
and simply won't do it if everything does not meet his standards. It was very
instructive to hear him talk about preparing months for a concert, arriving
weeks in advance to select a piano, spend days tuning and regulating it,
including several hours on the day of the concert, and then see Alexander
Toradze bash his way like a bull in a china shop through Prokofiev's Second
Piano Concerto using the same piano the orchestra's keyboard player had just
used to bang through the Scythian Suite's orchestral piano part.
It's always an event when Samir and I agree on something, but Moravec is one of
the supreme pianists alive today, and for exactly the reasons Samir mentions
(among others).
Dave
David Hurwitz
dhur...@classicstoday.com
www.classicstoday.com
Samir Golescu
On 16 Jan 2002, HenryFogel wrote:
> >Samir will probably not agree with me, but I've always heard the
> >influence of Michelangeli in Moravec's playing, particularly in
> >Moravec's non-percussive sound. He studied for a period with ABM.
> >
>
> I can't say whether Samir would agree with you, but I can give you more
> important support: Moravec would agree with you.
Oy, you mean I am not as important as Moravec? That might be, but, per
cortesia.... (:
> Moravec has on more than one
> occasion referred to Michelangeli as his pianistic idol, and as having
> the strongest influence on him.
That's like Gould claiming he was influenced by Mengelberg, only that
this time is the other way around...... (:
> I'm listening, right now in fact, to a new Hanssler CD featuring a live recital
> of Moravec at the Prague 2000 Spring Festival; it is wonderful. A Haydn D
> Major Sonata, Janacek Sonata, Janacek In the Mist, some Chopin Preludes and
> then Debussy and Chopin encores. Gorgeous playing.
I plan to get that. Thanks for the encouragement.
Matthew Silverstein
> It's always an event when Samir and I agree on something, but Moravec is one
of
> the supreme pianists alive today, and for exactly the reasons Samir mentions
> (among others).
The apocalypse is upon us . . .
Matty
Simon Roberts
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a22ft...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> The Supraphon reissues of the VAI reissues of the Connoisseur Society
discs
> sound generally fine
[snip]
Do they sound much different, if at all - i.e., if one already has the
VAI, is it worth buying the Supraphon transfers.
Simon
David Hurwitz
g-man
Yes! I get warm and fuzzy feelings listening to Moravec's recordings
(especially the Chopin Barcarolle)
Each key sounds as if powered by a 12AX7 ;o)
Gotta love that fat tube sound...
> > Regarding Moravec. What are the qualities he possesses that stand out
for
> > you, especially in Chopin?
>
> The sonority is extraordinary beautiful, mellow, mellifluous. The fingers
> are reaching deep and tender into the keys, even in fortissimo. The
> voicings are both subtle and eloquent, not very far from Moiseiwitsch's
> way of approaching voicing in piano-playing.
[snip]
> > And how does his recordings sound?
>
>
> Better than most of my other piano recordings, of course..... they are
> stereo-schmereo, to begin with..... (not that I'd notice the
> difference "anyways" [sic]) (-:
>
> Now really, in many of Moravec's recordings, the piano sound is captured
> in all its melodious glory.
[snip]
Wayne Reimer
says...
They don't really agree on this, you know. It's only a temporary
inability to find the points on which to differ.
That will come....
wr
Neil
>> Moravec has on more than one
>> occasion referred to Michelangeli as his pianistic idol, and as having
>> the strongest influence on him.
>
>That's like Gould claiming he was influenced by Mengelberg, only that
>this time is the other way around...... (:
Not sure if U are kidding or not, but Gould always cited Mengelberg's
Heldenleben as a great influence, nay a seminal influence in nurturing his love
of Strauss and late romantic music.
n.
Neil
>A reviewer ought to consider it because part of
>what a reviewer does is to guide prospective purchasers, and part of that
>guidance involves comparisons with other available recordings - one of
>which, of course, is Moravec's.
Perhaps its the way I think these days. I see the age gap as being critical: the
forty odd years separating Freddy and Moravec is a void which no amount of
insight on the younger artist's part could fill. In that way comparison is
odious. Is it sensible to compare Klemperer's St Matthew with an account by
someone in their twenties ? Maybe I'm wrong but I feel experience and maturity,
time to age one's interpretation are critical in getting to the heart of music.
Bob Lombard
wrote:
>Perhaps its the way I think these days. I see the age gap as being critical: the
>forty odd years separating Freddy and Moravec is a void which no amount of
>insight on the younger artist's part could fill. In that way comparison is
>odious. Is it sensible to compare Klemperer's St Matthew with an account by
>someone in their twenties ? Maybe I'm wrong but I feel experience and maturity,
>time to age one's interpretation are critical in getting to the heart of music.
Those 'forty odd years' of separation very likely have an
effect on general outlook, but need have no relevance in
music interpretation. Forty years contemplating a score is
overkill. That much 'time to age one's interpretation' is
also plenty of time for sand to get into the works.
"Older and wiser" describes a process working on
individuals. I am convinced that I am wiser at 64 than I was
at 24. I am also quite sure that there are lots of
24-year-olds out there who are wiser than I am.
Freddy and Moravec - via their recordings, they show us
interpretive possibilities. rec.music.classical.recordings -
the name says it all.
I suppose I should apologize for 'lecturing' here - but I
won't. Old fogeys need to lecture - helps gather those
thoughts that have been scattered by defunct synapses.
bl
Alan Cooper
news:a22ft...@drn.newsguy.com...
> The Supraphon reissues of the VAI reissues of the Connoisseur Society
discs
> sound generally fine, though Moravec told me that he would like to remake
some
> of the repertoire now (I interviewed him a couple of months ago after his
> Carnegie Hall concert and it will post shortly). For example, he revealed
that
> he decided not to include his marvelous Appassionata Sonata on the
Beethoven
> disc because a certain critic (who shall remain nameless) took him to task
for
> omitting a repeat, and while he does not think this was "wrong" at the
time, he
> would like to do it over with the offending repeat included. So hang on to
those
> VAI's if you have them!
Having revealed why the Appassionata was not reissued by Supraphon, can you
tell us why Moravec's marvelous Pastoral was not reissued by either VAI or
Supraphon?
Incidentally, concerning the problematic Connoisseur Society LP pressings,
the way to get Moravec's Beethoven and Chopin was from the Book of the Month
Club, which had much better quality control. They still sound good!
AC
Kalman Rubinson
<amco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, concerning the problematic Connoisseur Society LP pressings,
>the way to get Moravec's Beethoven and Chopin was from the Book of the Month
>Club, which had much better quality control. They still sound good!
A partial solution. The BOMC pressings were more reliable but not the
equal of the best Connoisseur Society pressings. Moot now, I guess.
Kal
Samir Golescu
I know. That's why I gave the example -- I don't have to find someone's
influence in X's playing just because X says it was influenced by that
someone.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
> I know. That's why I gave the example -- I don't have to find
> someone's influence in X's playing just because X says it was
> influenced by that someone.
Notoriously, Andrea Bocelli has studied with Franco Corelli. Case closed!
Allan Burns
> For example, he revealed that he decided not to include his
> marvelous Appassionata Sonata on the Beethoven
> disc because a certain critic (who shall remain nameless)
Sviatoslav Richter? (Just kidding, but he was indeed critical of
pianists who didn't take the repeat in the Appassionata, which btw
indicts a number of other notable ones--e.g. Rubinstein '45,
Casadesus, Solomon, Sofronitsky.)
Allan
Samir Golescu
On 16 Jan 2002, Allan Burns wrote:
> > For example, he revealed that he decided not to include his
> > marvelous Appassionata Sonata on the Beethoven
> > disc because a certain critic (who shall remain nameless)
>
> Sviatoslav Richter? (Just kidding, but he was indeed critical of
> pianists who didn't take the repeat in the Appassionata, which btw
> indicts a number of other notable ones--e.g. Rubinstein '45,
> Casadesus, Solomon, Sofronitsky.)
....plus the (in this piece) the daddy of them all, Ernst Levy.
*Avoiding* the repeat accentuates the impression of inexorableness and
accentuates the sonata-form-like features of the third movement [as
opposed to the rondo ones]. If I met Mr Moravec, I'd tell him: "please,
Maestro, kindly screw the critics, go ahead and publish your Appassionata,
the hungry music lovers are waiting for it!".
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> *Avoiding* the repeat accentuates the impression of inexorableness and
> accentuates the sonata-form-like features of the third movement [as
> opposed to the rondo ones].
Which do you prefer? I tend to prefer the repeat, as it makes the onslaught of
the coda that much more overwhelming (at least to my ears).
Matty
Raymond Hall
news:utgb4u8v2l99tvfo4...@4ax.com...
I think Neil has a good point though Bob, in that at the age of 24 (still
wet behind the ears), one needs a bit more of life's experience for the
spiritual quality of some works to be more fully appreciated.
Previn was doing great stuff (RVW, Walton, Rach, Prok etc.,) with the LSO in
the sixties/seventies when he was about 30-35, and declared he simply wasn't
ready for Beethoven. Brahms was in his forties before embarking on his
symphonies. Boulez was at his wildest and angriest when younger apparently,
and is now doing Bruckner. How many conductors are let loose on *any*
orchestra at age 24.
Surely age must be factored in somehow. Although there does come a point,
when we start sliding down the other side of the hill <g>
Samir Golescu
> > *Avoiding* the repeat accentuates the impression of inexorableness and
> > accentuates the sonata-form-like features of the third movement [as
> > opposed to the rondo ones].
>
> Which do you prefer?
Do you really need my answer? You should know it...... (-:
Simon Roberts
wrote:
>I think Neil has a good point though Bob, in that at the age of 24 (still
>wet behind the ears), one needs a bit more of life's experience for the
>spiritual quality of some works to be more fully appreciated.
That's an argument for not allowing 24-year-olds to make records, not an
argument against comparing the results with recordings by the elders,
isn't it? And it would be wrong - there are plenty of good recordings by
youngsters and dud ones by older ones.
>
>Previn was doing great stuff (RVW, Walton, Rach, Prok etc.,) with the LSO in
>the sixties/seventies when he was about 30-35, and declared he simply wasn't
>ready for Beethoven.
The Beethoven he performed in the 60s/70s was far better than the dreary
Beethoven he recorded for RCA in the early 90s....
Simon
Bob Lombard
<hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>"Bob Lombard" <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
>news:utgb4u8v2l99tvfo4...@4ax.com...
>| Those 'forty odd years' of separation very likely have an
>| effect on general outlook, but need have no relevance in
>| music interpretation. Forty years contemplating a score is
>| overkill. That much 'time to age one's interpretation' is
>| also plenty of time for sand to get into the works.
>|
>| "Older and wiser" describes a process working on
>| individuals. I am convinced that I am wiser at 64 than I was
>| at 24. I am also quite sure that there are lots of
>| 24-year-olds out there who are wiser than I am.
>
>I think Neil has a good point though Bob, in that at the age of 24 (still
>wet behind the ears), one needs a bit more of life's experience for the
>spiritual quality of some works to be more fully appreciated.
>
>Previn was doing great stuff (RVW, Walton, Rach, Prok etc.,) with the LSO in
>the sixties/seventies when he was about 30-35, and declared he simply wasn't
>ready for Beethoven. Brahms was in his forties before embarking on his
>symphonies. Boulez was at his wildest and angriest when younger apparently,
>and is now doing Bruckner. How many conductors are let loose on *any*
>orchestra at age 24.
>
>Surely age must be factored in somehow. Although there does come a point,
>when we start sliding down the other side of the hill <g>
>
Not being a trained debater, I can't argue with statements
I'm in agreement with. *However* - there is nothing in what
you say that contradicts my remark that "older and wiser"
describes what (we hope) happens to an individual over time.
"Older and wiser" used to compare two people may *or may
not* be true.
(I rather like Freddy's Chopin - but that may be related to
my lack of appreciation for many of the lauded
interpretations.)
Of course. 'wisdom' is not particularly precise in meaning.
For instance, dk is a very intelligent and knowledgable
person - but his designation of Beethoven's Hammerklavier as
"monumental dreck" indicates a defective critical faculty.
bl
Dan Koren
>
> Of course. 'wisdom' is not particularly precise in meaning.
> For instance, dk is a very intelligent and knowledgable
> person - but his designation of Beethoven's Hammerklavier as
> "monumental dreck" indicates a defective critical faculty.
>
Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
critical faculty that cannot be brain-
washed or intimidated by tradition,
political correctness, or the musical
establishment.
BTW I should mention in passing that I
know *many* pianists who think the same
but are afraid to speak out because of
the potential consequences to their
careers.
Since I do not have a musical career to
protect, I can speak my mind freely on
the matter -- one of the few benefits
left to the kibitzer :)
dk
Samir Golescu
On 17 Jan 2002, Dan Koren wrote:
> Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
> critical faculty that cannot be brain-
> washed or intimidated by tradition,
> political correctness, or the musical
> establishment.
Like, let's see.... so it's not [quiet long murmuring names of
candidates], oh, I see, like yours?
> BTW I should mention in passing that I
> know *many* pianists who think the same
> but are afraid to speak out because of
> the potential consequences to their
> careers.
Now waidaminit, I think there are truer opportunities to heroism than
criticizing a poor fugue, aren't there?
> Since I do not have a musical career to
> protect, I can speak my mind freely on
> the matter -- one of the few benefits
> left to the kibitzer :)
"Kibitzer"? Is this Yiddish taken from Romanian or Romanian taken from
Yiddish, one wonders?
regards,
SG
Neil
>Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
>Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
>is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
>critical faculty that cannot be brain-
>washed or intimidated by tradition,
>political correctness, or the musical
>establishment.
Its hardly an attempt at objective analysis based in compositional terms.
Mind U I find the 9th symphony almost totally incomprehensible apart from the
slow movement. I just fail to connect to it in any way shape of form excepting
fleeting inspiration courtesy of the that monumental Beethovenist, Dr Klemperer.
Allan Burns
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> > What struck me on first acquaintance was the complete projection,
> > vivid almost, of this piece, by Moravec's playing. If his Chopin is on
> > a par with the Korte I am hearing, then this could be the Chopin I
> > want to hear. Moravec's playing absolutely riveted one's attention.
>
> I do not know the Korte piece/recording
You might want to check this out at some point. A two-movement (;-))
sonata, one of the few piano sonatas I've heard from the second half
of the twentieth century (1954 to be precise) that I've found pretty
enjoyable. Certainly exciting. It's part of a live recital of Czech
music (Suk, Smetana) on Supraphon. His Suk Love Song, op. 7 no. 1 is
ravishing. Was recently reissued, but you can still get the earlier
version from Berkshire.
Allan
Lena
> Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
> critical faculty [...]
Perhaps. But one can't call it formless! :)
If it's monumental dreck, it's carefully formed monumental dreck. :)
Lena
Raymond Hall
|
| On 17 Jan 2002, Dan Koren wrote:
|
| > BTW I should mention in passing that I
| > know *many* pianists who think the same
| > but are afraid to speak out because of
| > the potential consequences to their
| > careers.
|
| Now waidaminit, I think there are truer opportunities to heroism than
| criticizing a poor fugue, aren't there?
There are probably many finer ways to be heroic here (or suicidal), such as
criticising certain "hero" figures in music, but your use of the word poor
in this context is almost apt. And why (is there a law which says I should
never start a sentence with "and", mmmmm ...) shouldn't someone be true to
themselves and say that a particular work is all huff and puff, and
seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure? Am I supposed to sit in my
living room and pretend that I am something I am not, or pretend that I am
receiving serious pleasure, because I am playing X's Hammerklavier, and
wasting precious minutes of my life? Am I even supposed to deceive myself
into believing my musical and other intellectual qualities are greater than
those of JS Bach, by listening to Books I and II of the WTC *all the way
through* in a stoic effort to some sort of pretence. Bach would have laughed
himself all the way to the bank.
Regardless of the Hammerklavier's *supposed* intellectual and academic
worth, (and I have read Rosen too), why cannot one say it is a sodding bore,
if a sodding boring it is. Most of us are not professional pianists trying
to protect our careers. We are here because we love classical music. But not
ALL of it, and I don't see why Beethoven should get off the hook, when poor
Respighi, among better known others, have been called junk composers.
Beethoven was fully capable of producing his share of musical junk.
Simon Roberts
wrote:
>
>There are probably many finer ways to be heroic here (or suicidal), such as
>criticising certain "hero" figures in music, but your use of the word poor
>in this context is almost apt. And why (is there a law which says I should
>never start a sentence with "and", mmmmm ...) shouldn't someone be true to
>themselves and say that a particular work is all huff and puff, and
>seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure? Am I supposed to sit in my
>living room and pretend that I am something I am not, or pretend that I am
>receiving serious pleasure, because I am playing X's Hammerklavier, and
>wasting precious minutes of my life?
Of course not. But why not just say you don't like it?
Simon
Lena
>Regardless of the Hammerklavier's *supposed* intellectual and
>academic worth, (and I have read Rosen too), why cannot one say it is
>a sodding bore, if a sodding boring it is.
One problem is that you phrase it as if it were objectively a sodding
bore. But the piece is not objectively a sodding bore. So what are
people who disagree with you supposed to get out of you repeating this
kind of opinion a lot?
It's also a question of basic manners. In real life, you wouldn't just
yell out "this dinner party of yours is a sodding bore!" - presumably.
Once might be quaint, doing it a lot makes people think you're
boorish. (When you really aren't, I assume. :) )
The untrammeled "this is a sodding bore" type venting belongs in some
other newsgroup IMO. It has about zero information or entertainment
value when said more than once. You're not going to achieve the
liberation of humankind from the Hammerklavier, anyway.
Lena
Matthew Silverstein
>Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
>Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
>is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
>critical faculty that cannot be brain-
>washed or intimidated by tradition,
>political correctness, or the musical
>establishment.
It's hardly perfect proof. That is, his calling the Hammerklavier fugue
monumental dreck might also indicate that he likes to dismiss great works of
art.
*Hamlet* is dreck!
The above is hardly "perfect proof" that I have "an uncorrupted critical
faculty that cannot be brainwashed or intimidated by tradition, political
correctness, or the musical establishment."
Matty (who of course does possess such a faculty . . .)
Matty
John Gavin
any other opus - (just offering a contrary viewpoint). The fugue for me
is transcendentally great music. I hear this movement as a distant
relative (or pre-cursor) of the finale of the Chopin Bb Minor Sonata.
The form and shape are completely different and unrelated, but both
represent music portraying the movement of energy, not melody. It's a
mistake IMO to dismiss this as "dreck".
Lena
> The fugue for me is transcendentally great music.
Maybe I'll just add that there's nothing "academic" involved in finding
the fugue wonderful. It's an extremely rewarding, immediately visceral and
physical experience.
Uh, IMO. :)
Lena
Raymond Hall
news:slrn3vsa4em...@pobox.upenn.edu...
I thought I had already made that pretty clear in previous posts, and was
essentially expanding upon a point that I thought relevant. Or if you mean
that our vocabulary should be restricted to phrases such as "I don't like
Z", then we are obviously taking a backward step in communication. N'est-ce
pas?
I remember yourself, on several occasions, rising to much more rhetorical
levels on your asessment of certain composers of whom others cherish dearly.
Raymond Hall
news:6b33de45.02011...@posting.google.com...
| "Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|
|
| >Regardless of the Hammerklavier's *supposed* intellectual and
| >academic worth, (and I have read Rosen too), why cannot one say it is
| >a sodding bore, if a sodding boring it is.
|
| One problem is that you phrase it as if it were objectively a sodding
| bore. But the piece is not objectively a sodding bore. So what are
| people who disagree with you supposed to get out of you repeating this
| kind of opinion a lot?
A rat's nest is not either objectively boring either. You are reading my
posts in much too literal a manner. And once again, I was replying to a
post, and trying to expand on my feelings. As for the many who disagree with
me, then I fully expect it, and they should be more confident of their own
likes and dislikes, hence mentally poo-pooing what I say. Surely we don't
have to discuss that?
| It's also a question of basic manners. In real life, you wouldn't just
| yell out "this dinner party of yours is a sodding bore!" - presumably.
| Once might be quaint, doing it a lot makes people think you're
| boorish. (When you really aren't, I assume. :) )
Am I going to apologise for my manners, because I call something a bore
!!!!! ????? Of course not, and I have absolutely no need to. Get real Lena.
Maybe you need another G and T.
Raymond Hall
| On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:18:55 +1100, Raymond Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com>
| wrote:
|
| >I think Neil has a good point though Bob, in that at the age of 24 (still
| >wet behind the ears), one needs a bit more of life's experience for the
| >spiritual quality of some works to be more fully appreciated.
|
| That's an argument for not allowing 24-year-olds to make records, not an
| argument against comparing the results with recordings by the elders,
| isn't it? And it would be wrong - there are plenty of good recordings by
| youngsters and dud ones by older ones.
But my remarks weren't confined to addressing one aspect, which you have
singled out. And when addressing the argument about comparisons with older
performers, then I see no reason why these comparisons shouldn't be a
natural given. They are instructive, if only to prove that in the vast
majority of cases, age *is* a factor. But not only that, the obvious point
is that the numerical age of 24 (from the point of life experience, etc.,)
is simply too young. If I buy a work, I want the best performance, and
recording that my money will buy, based on comparisons. Age is essentially
irrespective from this point of view anyway, but the difference between 24
and 44, is far more than the simple numerical difference.
The marketing aspect, of course, comes into the equation as well. A lady
pianist, or violinist, has great market value, not to mention eye-appeal, on
the covers of our CDs, especially when young and attractive. It is simply a
progression, and transferance, of the marketing hype, good looks and youth,
from which the pop industry for the last 25 years has prospered, into the
genre called classical music. Strangely, or maybe not, it would seem that
many classical music lovers have also been suckered into the same marketing
strategy.
vladimir
listen to it many, many more times. It has almost never bored me; to the
contrary, it seems to grow fresher and more fascinating the more familiar I
become with it.
What does it mean, "to sod"?
- Phil Caron
Simon Roberts
"Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:a27pmd$vdl21$1...@ID-101911.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I thought I had already made that pretty clear in previous posts, and
was
> essentially expanding upon a point that I thought relevant. Or if you
mean
> that our vocabulary should be restricted to phrases such as "I don't
like
> Z", then we are obviously taking a backward step in communication.
N'est-ce
> pas?
Peut-etre. But - maybe I'm just misreading you - you imply more than
personal dissatisfaction when you say: "a particular work is all huff
and puff, and
seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure," unless we're to read in a
"me" after "giving".
>
> I remember yourself, on several occasions, rising to much more
rhetorical
> levels on your asessment of certain composers of whom others cherish
dearly.
>
Sure; but I don't think I implied more than an expression of personal
taste. If I did, I shouldn't have.
Simon
Simon Roberts
"vladimir" <vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:g4K18.334057$m05.26...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Consider what it might be an abbreviation for. Illegal in more backward
(as it were) states.
Simon
John Grabowski
> Bob Lombard <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote in message news:<f94e4us0dcee3qthc...@4ax.com>...
>
>>Of course. 'wisdom' is not particularly precise in meaning.
>>For instance, dk is a very intelligent and knowledgable
>>person - but his designation of Beethoven's Hammerklavier as
>>"monumental dreck" indicates a defective critical faculty.
>>
>>
>
> Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
> critical faculty that cannot be brain-
> washed or intimidated by tradition,
> political correctness, or the musical
> establishment.
>
> BTW I should mention in passing that I
> know *many* pianists who think the same
Many. Many many many.
These are no doubt the same many who all agree on what intro is the
toughest piano work to pull off of all time.
John
--
As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. -Lisa Simpson
A. Brain
> > What does it mean, "to sod"?
>
> Consider what it might be an abbreviation for. Illegal in more backward
> (as it were) states.
Chiefly British, a curious turn of phrase perhaps, at least in this form.
Far from being barely tolerable,
most things that are illegal in "backward" states are hardly boring.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Raymond Hall
|
| "Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
| news:a27pmd$vdl21$1...@ID-101911.news.dfncis.de...
| > "Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
| > |
| > | Of course not. But why not just say you don't like it?
| >
| > I thought I had already made that pretty clear in previous posts, and
| was
| > essentially expanding upon a point that I thought relevant. Or if you
| mean
| > that our vocabulary should be restricted to phrases such as "I don't
| like
| > Z", then we are obviously taking a backward step in communication.
| N'est-ce
| > pas?
|
| Peut-etre. But - maybe I'm just misreading you - you imply more than
| personal dissatisfaction when you say: "a particular work is all huff
| and puff, and
| seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure," unless we're to read in a
| "me" after "giving".
Of course, I think you know quite well that the word "me" should have been
included. Seems like we are back to having to put in the imho's again <g>
| >
| > I remember yourself, on several occasions, rising to much more
| rhetorical
| > levels on your asessment of certain composers of whom others cherish
| dearly.
| >
|
| Sure; but I don't think I implied more than an expression of personal
| taste. If I did, I shouldn't have.
Naughty boy, but why not be a devil and let your feelings hang out once in a
while? I still love Delius, Elgar and Debussy as much as I ever did <g>
ulvi
Indeed.
The problem with the "emperor has no clothes" attitude to music we don't
like is the same problem with any conspiracy theory: The likelihood of
any conspiracy decreases exponentially with the number of
"conspirators" you need involved to sustain it. With Beethoven (or Bach,
or... a handful of others) the number and diversity of people through
many generations who loved their music passionately is so great that
it's flat out silly to believe any kind of collective conspiracy that grants
them undeserved greatness.
I never understood why people find it so hard to accept that some music
can be both great and yet at the same time completely fail to appeal to
them at a personal level. I have no problem accepting that Wagner, Liszt,
Debussy wrote great music that nevertheless does nothing for me, and
that it is ultimately my loss.
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
vladimir
>
>Consider what it might be an abbreviation for. Illegal in more backward
>(as it were) states.
>
circumstances (where I shall try to remember to use it,) and an execrable
usage in every other. IMHO it seems misapplied here, but I'm woefully
ignorant of Australian speech and other customs.
:-)
- Phil Caron
Raymond Hall
ROTFL. Excellent reply.
British slang, and can be easily substituted for f*** off, or f***ing bore.
Generally used in the UK, even in well-heeled circles.
Also a piece of turf, originating from low German.
Simon Roberts
> >
> Ah. That's the kind of word that is the very best word in a tiny set
of
> circumstances (where I shall try to remember to use it,) and an
execrable
> usage in every other. IMHO it seems misapplied here, but I'm woefully
> ignorant of Australian speech and other customs.
Probably very wise. Violet Crumbles, Koalas and, if you're very brave,
Vegemite, aren't all bad.
Simon
Dan Koren
> On 17 Jan 2002 11:48:52 -0800, dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote:
>
> > Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> > Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> > is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
> > critical faculty that cannot be brain-
> > washed or intimidated by tradition,
> > political correctness, or the musical
> > establishment.
>
> Its hardly an attempt at objective
> analysis based in compositional terms.
>
a) there is no such thing as "objective
analysis" of music -- or any form of
art.
b) even if a) above were not true, yours
truly has never pretended to engage in
objective analysis -- unlike so many
hypocritical music critics we all
know, love and fear! :)
dk
Raymond Hall
news:3C476C05...@jpl.nasa.gov...
|
| I never understood why people find it so hard to accept that some music
| can be both great and yet at the same time completely fail to appeal to
| them at a personal level. I have no problem accepting that Wagner, Liszt,
| Debussy wrote great music that nevertheless does nothing for me, and
| that it is ultimately my loss.
You have made a good point, but I should stress, that my opinion (and maybe
Dan's opinion) should in no way be translated into the idea that we have
denied Beethoven his overall greatness, as perceived by others (or even by
ourselves) :-
Obviously, as you say, it is may be my loss in finding much of LvB's piano
writing ugly and unappealing, and his 9th symphony farcical. But for the
record, there are however, to me, hardly any notes that Haydn wrote that are
not worth preserving for eternity, and subsequent to Beethoven, Brahms works
are indeed generally chock full of tunes (often to the point of congestion,
IMHO), Mozart was a sheer genius, and the Schumann 2nd symphony is an
absolute delight, and especially in his Kinderszenen, is where I find my
19th century pianistic delights.
I posted not so long ago that I just can't swallow the whole Wagner thing,
but a slight rhetorical outburst every now and then, shouldn't be
interpreted incorrectly, "as that, that was said", and that therefore as a
consequence I have denied his greatness. I only know a very little of the
music of Boulez, but I have never said there wasn't the possibility he could
be the greatest 20th century composer to many. Absolutes (of worth) are
meaningless anyway, in artistic and musical achievement.
Just for the record.
And adding to the record, not so long ago (a matter of days) there was a
long thread about what was junk music to some. Seemed as though there were
quite a few, including (regretfully myself), who seemed to take the stick to
quite a few composers. Pity that whenever Beethoven crops up, it all becomes
a completely different matter.
Samir Golescu
> | It's also a question of basic manners. In real life, you wouldn't just
> | yell out "this dinner party of yours is a sodding bore!" - presumably.
> | Once might be quaint, doing it a lot makes people think you're
> | boorish. (When you really aren't, I assume. :) )
>
> Am I going to apologise for my manners, because I call something a bore
> !!!!! ?????
Not really, if you don't feel like. (-:
> Get real Lena. Maybe you need another G and T.
G and T???
Gramophone and Typewriters? Gore and Tatum?? Golescu and Tooter???
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
That final movement does require uncommon perspicuity on the
part of the performer (which may be lacking in dk's pianist
acquaintances). Lately I have heard recordings by Rosen and
Sokolov which pass muster. There are plenty of recorded
Hammerklaviers out there that don't work at all for me
though. The one that sticks in my mind even years after
hearing it is by Beveridge Webster on Dover.
bl
jeffrey
DanK...@Yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote:
i suggest that you and all others who are incapable of connecting with
Beeth.'s hammerklavier sonata (a wonderful work which is at once
playful,powerful & passionate) focus your attentions on the likes of Elton
John........or Vangelis. period.
Samir Golescu
That's an interesting point of view. At this point I should perhaps share,
as shortly as possible, my "Beethoven-Piano-Sonatas-story". I have never
ever took anybody else's experience as "good enough" for me, and I did
never have for Beethoven the immediate love I felt for Chopin, Brahms, or
Puccini. I had to thus discover and to "conquer", as a listener, every
single sonata. Sometimes time and repeated auditions helped, sometimes
discovering the recording that made that particular sonata work for me
helped substantially too.
As far as things are now: I do hereby declare (for the very little that's
worth) that I do really, honestly, and "organically" like most of
Beethoven's sonatas. I am slightly "colder" for some (opus 2 no 2, opus 10
no 2, opus 22, opus 101 & opus 109), I really don't like opus 7 and opus
54. I desperately love many of them (will not say which (-:) though.
I have only one movement that I kind of feel a more "objective" dislike
for. The *second* movement of opus 90 (I think the first movement is
superb, a Beethoven at his most Schumannesque avant la lettre -- I find
no recorded performance good enough), a pseudo-Schubertian parody worse
than the originals to come, a lengthy piece in which a not-so-memorable
tune is repeated endlessly with no imagination and with little skill --
please DO contradict and convince me.
But opus 106? I like it enormously until the fugue, and while I could
never grasp the "meaning" of the fugue, with its rough harmonization and
wild contrapuntal dementia -- John's above quoted take is at least
interesting -- I've always felt the strange power of the fugue like
something that waits for *me* to mature enough as to take it in. This is
definitely not hypocrisy, perhaps I didn't hear yet the pianist that makes
sense out of the fugue, even if (the earlier) Kempff and Levy came
relatively close to it. Another detail: I found for years the Arietta in
opus 111 overextended and boring until a recital (yes, a live performance,
out of all things) transported me in a timeless realm of perception in
which I wanted for the heavenly ornaments of the variations never to end.
No big deal in my words, just a trace of a humble, subjective, unfinished
itinerary in the world of Beethoven sonatas, a world in which the
disappointments were both largely outnumbered and outpowered by the
revelations.
regards,
SG
Lena
[Ray:]
>> Am I going to apologise for my manners, because I call something a bore
>> !!!!! ?????
>
>Not really, if you don't feel like. (-:
OK, you can all be rude with my blessings :) and sod everything!! :)
>> Get real Lena. Maybe you need another G and T.
>
>G and T???
>
>Gramophone and Typewriters? Gore and Tatum?? Golescu and Tooter???
I thought, Glissando and Trill, maybe. :) (Sounds like a rather
uninviting pub.)
(Btw, I'm afraid Golescu and Tooter can't be duplicated.)
Lena
Lena
> yours truly has never pretended to engage in objective analysis --
> unlike so many hypocritical music critics we all know, love and fear!
> :)
Bernard Holland? :)
Lena
Neil
>I know. That's why I gave the example -- I don't have to find someone's
>influence in X's playing just because X says it was influenced by that
>someone.
No you don't have to but you can surely ? I don't think I quite understand your
point.
n.
Raymond Hall
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020117...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu...
Actually, Gillespie and Tatum. No, I ordered another Gin & Tonic for Lena,
who is feeling much better as a result <g>
Actually, your previous post relating to your Beethoven piano sonata
experiences, was an excellent and candid post. I thought it an excellent
account of how you admitted to initial difficulties in appreciating many of
these sonatas, and how much persistence it took you for some of them to
reveal their quality. I often wish others could be more honest about it.
Music is partly texture, and melody too, and it took no time at all for me
to appreciate the Prokofiev 5th symphony, which has both qualities in
buckets. It never left my turntable, and the first theme haunted me for
ages. In fact it still does.
I am sure, that in an ideal world, each LvB sonata should be heard by the
right interpreter, even allowing for the fact that some of the sonatas are
of much better quality than some others.
On a personal note, my first set was on LP by Kempff, and the only time I
seemed to get the merest inkling of any intellectual power wrt the
Hammerklavier, was when played by Charles Rosen. An LP that I once
possessed, and part of it's value for me being the glorious (supremely
academic and yet still readable) notes supplied by Rosen himself.
Like yourself, I also found Puccini, Chopin and Brahms almost impossible to
dislike on relatively early acquaintance.
But thanks for "coming out", and admitting that there ARE difficulties with
LvB's piano music. I was beginning to think it was just me. And dk <g> They
aren't that easy to like, are they?
BTW, my personal test of what I really like, is what I find myself reaching
for on my shelves. I am sure that applies to others here as well,
naturellement.
Dan Koren
> dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote in message
> > Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> > Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> > is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
>
> Perhaps. But one can't call it formless! :)
No one has ever criticized Ludwig for lack
of strong forms -- just for the shortage of
everything else.
> If it's monumental dreck, it's carefully
> formed monumental dreck. :)
Yes indeed. Unfortunately the form does not
obviate the smell and taste.
dk
Dan Koren
You obviously have not spent much time in
music schools or conservatories. You would
have found out that most piano students
absolutely hate Beethoven -- especially
the Hammerklavier.
dk
Dan Koren
and i suggest that you and all others
who are so connected with beethoven
that they cannot tolerate the thought
of other people not liking the same
works/artists that you like go see
a psychiatrist to have their heads
examined.
dk
Dan Koren
>
> > The fugue for me is transcendentally great music.
>
> involved in finding the fugue wonderful.
Or dreckful.
> It's an extremely rewarding, immediately visceral
> and physical experience.
Which just by itself does not make any music either
good or bad. Rock, rap and metal also seem to have
such effects on people, and I can easily imagine
the same words being said by a punk.
dk
Sonarrat Citalis
news:6b8e7eb9.0201...@posting.google.com...
> > > Au contraire, mon cher ami. Calling the
> > > Hammerklavier fugue a monumental dreck
> > > is the perfect proof of an uncorrupted
> > > critical faculty [...]
> > Perhaps. But one can't call it formless! :)
> No one has ever criticized Ludwig for lack
> of strong forms -- just for the shortage of
> everything else.
> > If it's monumental dreck, it's carefully
> > formed monumental dreck. :)
> Yes indeed. Unfortunately the form does not
> obviate the smell and taste.
Perhaps Beethoven's compositions are not possessed of the overwhelming
purity of, say, a Ravel. Perhaps they are never as beautiful as a Schubert.
They don't have the grandeur of a Brahms, the tastefulness of a Mozart, or
the sublime quality of Scriabin. Why everyone keeps coming back to the
thirty-two sonatas of Beethoven despite this is no mystery. They are
a -challenge.- They are a constant challenge to the performer, listener and
scholar, and to some, such a challenge is an inexhaustible source of
delight. I, personally, will never tire of Op. 78. I have studied it,
paced around it, growled at it, fought with it, rubbed noses with it, locked
eyes with it, and wondered endlessly about it. I will be perfectly happy if
I never understand it as long as I live.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Email: Remove the fish, replace the net.
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarrat/sonarratsig.html
"Inspiration is drunken; execution is sober." -Alexander Scriabin
Dan Koren
> "Lena" <len...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6b33de45.02011...@posting.google.com...
> | "Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> |
> |
> | >Regardless of the Hammerklavier's *supposed* intellectual and
> | >academic worth, (and I have read Rosen too), why cannot one say it is
> | >a sodding bore, if a sodding boring it is.
> |
> | One problem is that you phrase it as if it were objectively a sodding
> | bore. But the piece is not objectively a sodding bore. So what are
> | people who disagree with you supposed to get out of you repeating this
> | kind of opinion a lot?
>
> A rat's nest is not either objectively boring either.
> You are reading my posts in much too literal a manner.
Only when she wants to -- or is pissed off.
She knows better than that.
dk
Sonarrat Citalis
"Dan Koren" <DanK...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b8e7eb9.0201...@posting.google.com...
I would be one of the many exceptions to that theory. I find the
Hammerklavier to be a delight to play and to hear. I rank its slow movement
below only that of the Bartok Second Concerto. I have found much to like in
every Beethoven sonata.
Simon Roberts
wrote:
>
>On a personal note, my first set was on LP by Kempff
That explains everything.
Simon
Allan Burns
> *Hamlet* is dreck!
" . . . there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet (II.ii.250-1)
Allan
Samir Golescu
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Raymond Hall wrote:
> Like yourself, I also found Puccini, Chopin and Brahms almost impossible to
> dislike on relatively early acquaintance.
>
> But thanks for "coming out", and admitting that there ARE difficulties with
> LvB's piano music. I was beginning to think it was just me. And dk <g> They
> aren't that easy to like, are they?
Some of them not. But this is not a "coming out", you know. There is a lot
of great music that asks/ed for my effort as a listener, that doesn't mean
it is not great music. I used to find Bach "difficult" and "abstract" and
now there is no music I find more emotional. Sometimes, that's true, one
makes efforts, and in vain. To each his own story.
> BTW, my personal test of what I really like, is what I find myself reaching
> for on my shelves. I am sure that applies to others here as well,
> naturellement.
Naturellement, naturellement.... (-:
regards,
SG
Max Schmeder
> jg...@webtv.net (John Gavin) wrote
>
> > The fugue for me is transcendentally great music.
>
> Maybe I'll just add that there's nothing "academic" involved in finding
> physical experience.
me too. ..or rather, i agree :)
> Uh, IMO. :)
>
> Lena
MIFrost
>
> Peut-etre. But - maybe I'm just misreading you - you imply more than
> personal dissatisfaction when you say: "a particular work is all huff
> and puff, and
> seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure," unless we're to read in a
> "me" after "giving".
>
> >
> > I remember yourself, on several occasions, rising to much more
> rhetorical
> > levels on your asessment of certain composers of whom others cherish
> dearly.
> >
>
> Sure; but I don't think I implied more than an expression of personal
> taste. If I did, I shouldn't have.
>
> Simon
I always have a problem with this issue. If I say that Beethoven wrote
ugly music or Rembrandt painted ugly paintings, well, so what? What do
I know? But if I have a conversation with the curator of the
Metropolitan Museum, or the head of the Music Department at the Hoity
Toity University and am told the same thing by these women (Yes,
women) then what am I to think about their credentials? They may not
"like" to listen to Beethoven or look at a Rembrandt. But museums and
universities aren't established to promote peoples hobbies and
recreations. Their establishment *presumes* that certain endeavors
warrant our scholarly attention. Not because we *like* this or that
kind of music but because our cultural history is founded on it.
That's why the notion of a "Rock & Roll Museum" is, IMO, such a big
joke. So when an RMCR poster makes a statement like the Hammerklavier
is a crashing bore, he's expressing more than a personal opinion. He's
questioning the very foundation of Western musical culture. Not that
there's anything wrong with that, of course. :-)
MIFrost (making trouble, as usual)
jeffrey
DanK...@Yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote:
> len...@yahoo.com (Lena) wrote in message
news:<6b33de45.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > jg...@webtv.net (John Gavin) wrote
> >
> > > The fugue for me is transcendentally great music.
> >
> > Maybe I'll just add that there's nothing "academic"
> > involved in finding the fugue wonderful.
>
> Or dreckful.
is that supposed to support your idiotic claim that the hammerklavier is
"boring' or an 'inferior" work? cant you do any better than that.
i happen to thoroghly agree that the fugue is <<transcendentally great
music>> and there's nothing academic about it's marvels.
you remind me of the dude who argues that a McDonalds burger is better
than a Filet Mignon. his evidence is that everyone is entitled to their
opinion.
Max Schmeder
guess is that the fugue represents logic (which in its severest form
borders upon illogic), and when it compounds upon itself, it
inevitably self-destructs, ruptured by its own paradoxes. There was
almost always this tendency in all of Beethoven's fugues (see fughetta
movement in son#3, for an early example), but it became an explicit
obsession late in his life. At least in the Diabelli Variations, this
metaphor of self-destruction is redeemed by the minuet, a nice little
utopian message. Who knows? Maybe the Hammerklavier will end up
saving the world, after all, as someone else (Lena?) said.
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.31.020117...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu>...
Samir Golescu
Ray H.:
> >On a personal note, my first set was on LP by Kempff
Simon R:
> That explains everything.
He said Kempff, not Kempf.
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
>Beethoven was getting quite philosophical in his last works, and my
>guess is that the fugue represents logic (which in its severest form
>borders upon illogic), and when it compounds upon itself, it
>inevitably self-destructs, ruptured by its own paradoxes.
Does the "which" in parentheses refer to logic or the fugue? Depending on
your answer, I'm not sure whether that passage makes any sense....
Simon
Lena
> Maybe the Hammerklavier will end up saving the world, after all, as
> someone else (Lena?) said.
This is presumably the superheroic period in Beethoven's output...
I *thought* I said: Ray may not be able to save the world from the
Hammerklavier. :)
(The other permutations of who saves what are yet to be explored.)
Lena
:)
Dan Koren
>
> Perhaps Beethoven's compositions are not
> possessed of the overwhelming purity of,
> say, a Ravel. Perhaps they are never as
> beautiful as a Schubert. They don't have
> the grandeur of a Brahms, the tastefulness
> of a Mozart, or the sublime quality of Scriabin.
Why beat around the bush and not just get
to the point? Beethoven's compositions are
possessed by two things, and two things only:
a) A desire to flaunt his construction
technique in every imaginable way,
no matter what the inspiration --
or lack thereof. Just stick a fugue
or funeral march in the middle of
any work -- whether it fits or not
or makes sense or not. If in doubt,
whip a theme into silly variations
or add choirs.
b) A desire to pose as a hero -- he a
petty Viennese bourgeois who never
came close to anything heroic. Why,
it is a lot easier -- is it not? --
to make one's music sound like a
struggle and inflict it on the ears
of an audience -- rather than take
part in an actual struggle.
> Why everyone keeps coming back to the
> thirty-two sonatas of Beethoven despite
> this is no mystery.
It is no mystery at all. It is music
school and conservatory curricula that
were dictated by Czerny, Moscheles and
Pabst.
> They are a -challenge.- They are a
> constant challenge to the performer,
Not every challenge is worth taking.
> listener
*That* is unforgivable. Artists do not
have the right to force "challenges"
on their audiences.
> and scholar,
Don't give a shit about scholars.
> and to some, such a challenge is an
> inexhaustible source of delight.
Yet another BDSM theory of art?
> I, personally, will never tire of Op. 78.
Maybe not -- but your audiences will.
> I have studied it, paced around it,
> growled at it, fought with it, rubbed
> noses with it, locked eyes with it, and
> wondered endlessly about it. I will be
> perfectly happy if I never understand
> it as long as I live.
If so you will never grow up.
dk
arri bachrach
I have a live recording by Mindru Katz done in Isreal in the 70s-
terrific playing- powerful
AB
Max Schmeder
Simon Roberts
>"Sonarrat Citalis" <sona...@postmark.cod> wrote in message news:<pzR18.4$uS5...@inet-nntp1.oracle.com>...
>> Why everyone keeps coming back to the
>> thirty-two sonatas of Beethoven despite
>> this is no mystery.
>
>It is no mystery at all. It is music
>school and conservatory curricula that
>were dictated by Czerny, Moscheles and
>Pabst.
Ummm... not everyone who likes this stuff attended a music school.
Simon
Lena
> as shortly as possible, my "Beethoven-Piano-Sonatas-story". I have never
> ever took anybody else's experience as "good enough" for me, and I did
> never have for Beethoven the immediate love I felt for Chopin, Brahms, or
> Puccini. I had to thus discover and to "conquer", as a listener, every
> single sonata. Sometimes time and repeated auditions helped, sometimes
> discovering the recording that made that particular sonata work for me
> helped substantially too.
[...]
Very interesting, actually. (But you presumably started playing
some of them when you were pretty young?)
The first time I heard the Hammerklavier I thought its crowning
achievement was the impressively interminable length. I gave it a rest;
when I came back later, the whole sonata had changed. Mysterious.
While I'm in confession mode, Debussy's piano music did the same thing. I
used to pretty much dislike it (the blame should be placed on various
dubious pianists). Then stopped listening. Now, as a result,
I'm rather infatuated with it. :)
Seriously, Debussy sounds great to me now; and I hear none of the gauzy
plinking for the synchronized swimming team I used to think it was all
about. Quite the opposite, actually.
The biggest change might have been Chopin; I needed to hear entirely
"different" and/or very nuanced Chopin playing to get shocked out of a
state of active unhearing that sometimes develops. (I've heard Chopin played
badly a very large number of times since a kid, it takes a Sofronitsky,
or Rosenthal to get that out of one's system. - Btw, it could also take a
Malc...insky but I hate spelling that name. :) )
Lena
Bob Lombard
Roberts) wrote:
Doesn't matter. Makes no sense either way.
bl
John Thomas
len...@yahoo.com (Lena) wrote:
> (I've heard Chopin played
> badly a very large number of times since a kid, it takes a Sofronitsky,
> or Rosenthal to get that out of one's system. - Btw, it could also take a
> Malc...insky but I hate spelling that name. :) )
Put Malcuzynski into your spell-check dictionary ;-) He deserves far
more mention here than he gets.
(Currently enjoying his EMI double-CD recently arrived from Berkshire
- the best collection of Mazurkas *rhythmically* I've heard + other
delights.)
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
jwth...@sonic.net
Sonarrat Citalis
"Dan Koren" <DanK...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
If I ever respected you, I do not respect you any longer. I could possibly
tolerate this discussion if it centered around Messiaen, Schoenberg or
Mompou, but Beethoven? That's heresy, and not just because Czerny told me
so. You are a disgrace.
Raymond Hall
news:5dc40039.02011...@posting.google.com...
| "Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:<a27qld$dba$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
| >
| > Peut-etre. But - maybe I'm just misreading you - you imply more than
| > personal dissatisfaction when you say: "a particular work is all huff
| > and puff, and
| > seriously wanting in giving musical pleasure," unless we're to read in a
| > "me" after "giving".
| >
| > >
| > > I remember yourself, on several occasions, rising to much more
| > rhetorical
| > > levels on your asessment of certain composers of whom others cherish
| > dearly.
| > >
| >
| > Sure; but I don't think I implied more than an expression of personal
| > taste. If I did, I shouldn't have.
| >
| > Simon
|
| I always have a problem with this issue. If I say that Beethoven wrote
| ugly music or Rembrandt painted ugly paintings, well, so what? What do
Indeed.
But don't make me laugh MIF, I have just had my brekky.
Moi, questioning the very foundations of Western music culture, because I
dislike the Hammerklavier and Choral rackets.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
You have gotta be joking or is it April already?
You should listen and take heed of what you hear from women more often imho.
<g>
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/01
Raymond Hall
Grow up Sonarrat. That kind of abuse is simply not warranted here. Now if
anyone said that Chopin couldn't write for the piano, I'd be set back a tad.
Beethoven was a million miles away from being anywhere near the Holy Grail
of the Super Composer. Especially when writing for the piano.
David7Gable
>and i suggest that you and all others
>who are so connected with beethoven
>that they cannot tolerate the thought
>of other people not liking the same
>works/artists that you like go see
>a psychiatrist to have their heads
>examined.
>
>
>dk
Here Koren gives advice he has never for a moment considered following.
Indeed, he is the best piece of evidence imaginable for the existence of the
phenomenon he decries. According to Koren, if anybody claims to like Beethoven
or Boulez, they must necessarily have been brainwashed or they must be
shamming, because no music that fails to speak to Koren could possibly speak to
anybody else.
-david gable