NYC Free Piano Recital
Rasiel
Seth wrote in message <6vbq1m$guv$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>....
>
>Marc Peloquin will perform the American composer Elliot Carter's Piano
>Sonata. Carter is a Pulitzer Prize winning composer who will turn 90
>this December. The other piece on the program will be the Handel
>Variations by Brahms. The Boston Globe called Marc's playing of
>these works "impressive."
>
I've heard of this Carter dude... what kind of music is it? Is there a midi
of this work somewhere. I find just about all contemporary classical music
an utter disgrace to musical achievement in general but hey, a free
recital's a free recital!
Jeff Harrison
> >Sonata. Carter is a Pulitzer Prize winning composer who will turn 90
> >this December.
"Rasiel" <ras...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I find just about all contemporary classical music
> an utter disgrace to musical achievement in general
That's what they used to say about Beethoven's music too. At least try to
be original.
Jeff Harrison
John Brock
This is a total non-sequitur. Just because something was false once
does *not* mean it can never be true. It is certainly possible
(difficult, but possible) to defend contemporary music, but I simply do
not understand why so many people think they can do so simply by
appealing to old criticisms of completely *different* music. "Somebody
once said something bad about Beethoven, therefore criticizing
contemporary music is like criticizing Beethoven". This is *not* a
valid argument! If you accept it, than *any* school of music, however
bad, becomes immunized from criticism.
Whatever the truth may be about the appeal of Beethoven's music in his
own time (and I heard plenty of claims that the supposed rejection of
Beethoven by the unwashed masses is a myth, invented by moderns to
sooth the wounds of their own rejection), it remains logically quite
possible that 1) the criticism of Beethoven's music was unjustified,
and 2) criticisms of contemporary classical music *are* justified.
In the end, of course, only history can judge. If a greater part of
the classical music of this century ends up (as I think likely) in the
dustbin of history, unplayed and forgotten except by specialists, then
that will be the judgement that stands. (And if 100 years from now
Milton Babbitt and Roger Sessions are as widely played and heard as
Beethoven and Mozart, then that will definitively prove me wrong.
Anyone care to place a bet?)
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Walter Schmid
>
> > >Marc Peloquin will perform the American composer Elliot Carter's Piano
> > >Sonata. Carter is a Pulitzer Prize winning composer who will turn 90
> > >this December.
>
> "Rasiel" <ras...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I find just about all contemporary classical music
> > an utter disgrace to musical achievement in general
>
> That's what they used to say about Beethoven's music too. At least try to
> be original.
>
against Beethoven sometimes, the public mostly loved him - this
is just the opposite of the situation of contemporary music.
Regards
Walter
David Place
Ironically, Elliot Carter's Piano Sonata is one of his most
accesible pieces.
-----
Send mail to (remove spaces):
d p l a c e @ e n t u i t . c o m
(Sorry for anti-spam measures)
Jeff Harrison
> This is a total non-sequitur. Just because something was false once
> does *not* mean it can never be true. It is certainly possible
> (difficult, but possible) to defend contemporary music, but I simply do
> not understand why so many people think they can do so simply by
> appealing to old criticisms of completely *different* music. "Somebody
> once said something bad about Beethoven, therefore criticizing
> contemporary music is like criticizing Beethoven". This is *not* a
> valid argument! If you accept it, than *any* school of music, however
> bad, becomes immunized from criticism.
I think you read between the lines too much. Read my statement again. All
I meant is that Beethoven's music, music that is now highly revered, was
criticised in his time (and, yes Walter, I meant the critics) - something
that we find somewhat funny in modern times.
I'm not defending "bad" music - I just find blanket statements about ALL
modern works hiliarious and as shortsighted and ignorant as the review of
the blowhard critics of yore.
This new music is not "completely" different - it is part of a long
evolutionary chain. Just because someone decided to severe their
understanding and appreciation of the art somewhere along the way doesn't
mean that everything thereafter is trash.
> it remains logically quite
> possible that 1) the criticism of Beethoven's music was unjustified,
> and 2) criticisms of contemporary classical music *are* justified.
However, it is not possible that the criticisms of ALL contempory music is
justified. The odds against that would have to be astronomical.
> In the end, of course, only history can judge. If a greater part of
> the classical music of this century ends up (as I think likely) in the
> dustbin of history, unplayed and forgotten except by specialists, then
> that will be the judgement that stands.
The greater part of classical music of ANY century ends up in the dustbin.
That's been proven over and over. Just try to come up with a short list of
the better known composers of the last century and you will see we are no
better off, nor any worse off, then any previous century.
We just ignorantly continue to believe that the new and different is
somehow less than the old and familiar. Whatever.
Jeff Harrison
Rasiel
Jeff Harrison wrote in message ...
>
>"Rasiel" <ras...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I find just about all contemporary classical music
>> an utter disgrace to musical achievement in general
>
>That's what they used to say about Beethoven's music too. At least try to
>be original.
>
>Jeff Harrison
Jeff, I won't attack your sense of intelligence since for all I know you do
know plenty about classical music. Regardless, JUST ABOUT all classical
music written this century (and I'm aware the term classical may be
controversial in itself) is... unmusical. I'll stop short of calling it
junk.
The analogy with Beethoven is grossly weak; especially since he was
routinely recognized in his own day as a tremendously gifted and prolific
composer. Alternately, I know of no composer currently living who writes
classical music whose music is instantly recognizable to the world at large.
Except maybe as movie soundtracks.
These sorts of threads can get ugly and it's not my intention to flame. I
just wanted to have more info about the recital while I still have a chance
to go.
Jeff Harrison
<ras...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeff, I won't attack your sense of intelligence since for all I know you do
> know plenty about classical music.
Didn't stop you last time. However, you did fail to mention your high IQ
this time.
> Regardless, JUST ABOUT all classical
> music written this century (and I'm aware the term classical may be
> controversial in itself) is... unmusical. I'll stop short of calling it
> junk.
Cite some examples. What you've played or studied or listened too at
length? Since "just about all" of it is "unmusical" you shouldn't have any
problems. And just what in the world defines "unmusical"?
> The analogy with Beethoven is grossly weak; especially since he was
> routinely recognized in his own day as a tremendously gifted and prolific
> composer.
As are Boulez, Cowell, Webern, Berg, Reich, Berio, Ives, Bartok, Davies,
Hindemith, Varese, Schoenberg, Milhaud, Prokofieff, Stravinsky, and so on
and so on...
Beethoven's name could have been replaced with damn near anyone who was
later hail as an originator. It was just an example and hardly weak one.
> Alternately, I know of no composer currently living who writes
> classical music whose music is instantly recognizable to the world at large.
The modern composers are known just as well today as they were in the
past. Just because your Led Zeppelin loving neighbor doesn't know about
Alan Hovhaness doesn't mean a thing just as a great number of people of
the past, far from the large cultural centers, not knowing about their
contemporaries didn't either. Not everyone followed or cared about the art
music of their day; I'm assuming you've heard of folk music, yes?
Jeff Harrison
John Sowalsky
> These sorts of threads can get ugly and it's not my intention to flame. I
> just wanted to have more info about the recital while I still have a chance
> to go.
Don't go. You will (apparently) hate Elliot Carter.
BTW, what kind of response do you think I would get if I made the statement that
"everything written before the 20th century is a digrace to the art of
music...?" I don't suppose you would find that insulting to your own personal
tastes, eh...? Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Copland, and Gershwin are all dancing jigs
in their graves right now...
--
John Sowalsky
sowa...@erols.com
Jeremy Cook
>
> In article <6vmp21$j3v$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Rasiel"
> <ras...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The analogy with Beethoven is grossly weak; especially since he was
> > routinely recognized in his own day as a tremendously gifted and prolific
> > composer.
>
> As are Boulez, Cowell, Webern, Berg, Reich, Berio, Ives, Bartok, Davies,
> Hindemith, Varese, Schoenberg, Milhaud, Prokofieff, Stravinsky, and so on
> and so on...
>
> Beethoven's name could have been replaced with damn near anyone who was
> later hail as an originator. It was just an example and hardly weak one.
By no means is the analogy of Beethoven v. Contemporary Composers
"weak". Beethoven was roundly criticized by his contemporaries on many
occasions. Here are just a couple of examples:
"Is it music, yes or no? If I am answered in the affirmative, I would
say that this does not belong to the art which I am in the habit of
considering as music." -- A. Oulibicheff, regarding the transition to
the last movement of the Fifth Symphony.
"Beethoven's Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing
wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the
Finale, furiously beats about with its tail erect."
-- Zeitung für die Elegente Welt, Vienna, May 1804.
"Recently there was given the overture to Beethoven's opera Fidelio, and
all impartial musicians and music lovers were in perfect agreement that
never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting
produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really
atrocious harmony, and a few puny ideas only increase the disagreeable
and deafening effect."
-- August von Kotzebue, Der Freimütige, Vienna, September 11, 1806.
These are just a few examples taken from the eleven pages of criticisms
of Beethoven recorded in Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical
Invective.
Marc Sabatella
>JUST ABOUT all classical
>music written this century (and I'm aware the term classical may be
>controversial in itself) is... unmusical. I'll stop short of calling it
>junk.
Why bother? You've already made your narrow tastes perfectly clear; it
shouldn't matter what particular perjorative you choose. The problem is
that you are confusing your own personal tastes with some sort of
Objective Truth in music. The fact that *you* don't like much 20th
century music in no way means that there is anything wrong with it.
>Alternately, I know of no composer currently living who writes
>classical music whose music is instantly recognizable to the world at large.
If popularity were a accurate measure of artistic merit, you might as
well give up on classical music altogether - all classical composers
combined aren't as recognizable as Madonna.
>These sorts of threads can get ugly and it's not my intention to flame.
Then why did you?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
>It is certainly possible
>(difficult, but possible) to defend contemporary music
Not difficult at all. Of course, first you must come up reaosnable
grounds to criticize it on. So far, none have been offered, aside from
a lack of popularity, which I find unimpressive as a measure of artistic
merit.
>but I simply do
>not understand why so many people think they can do so simply by
>appealing to old criticisms of completely *different* music.
If the only criticism of a piece of music is "it's bad because I don't
like the sound of it", then this is a weak (to the point of irrelvance)
criticism, and an example such as with Beethoven (or any other composer
who was initially disliked and then respected) suffices to show how
hollow this particular line of criticism is. If you want to criticize a
piece of contemporary music, you'll have to do better than "I don't like
it". Try explaining what in particular you don't like about a
particular piece of music. Sweeping generalization about an entire
genre show nothin but ignorance of the subject matter.
>"Somebody
>once said something bad about Beethoven, therefore criticizing
>contemporary music is like criticizing Beethoven". This is *not* a
>valid argument! If you accept it, than *any* school of music, however
>bad, becomes immunized from criticism.
No, it just makes it immune to lame criticisms that contian no
substance, as the criticism of contemporary classical music in this
thread have all been.
>In the end, of course, only history can judge. If a greater part of
>the classical music of this century ends up (as I think likely) in the
>dustbin of history, unplayed and forgotten except by specialists, then
>that will be the judgement that stands. (And if 100 years from now
>Milton Babbitt and Roger Sessions are as widely played and heard as
>Beethoven and Mozart, then that will definitively prove me wrong.
>Anyone care to place a bet?)
Again, I don't see why you are using popularity as a measure. All it
tells me is that Babbitt is not as popular as Beethoven. BFD. This
says nothing about artistic merit.
miro szczeskiewicz
'Patience is the best teacher, time the best critic' -- Frederic Chopin
Michal
Michael Subotin
>
> just a little quote to think about,
>
> 'Patience is the best teacher, time the best critic' -- Frederic Chopin
And another one:
'Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles' -- Frederic Chopin
:-)
Michael
--
E-mail: mvsst3+@pitt{DOT}edu Replace {DOT} with a dot
XyZortC
>> just a little quote to think about,
>> 'Patience is the best teacher, time the best critic' -- Frederic Chopin
>And another one:
>'Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles' -- Frederic Chopin
>
And yet another:
"Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market his
wares." -- Ceil
dr...@aol.com
xyz...@aol.com (XyZortC) wrote:
> "Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market his
> wares." -- Ceil
You can't possibly be serious.
-Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
XyZortC
I said:
>> "Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market
his
>> wares." -- Ceil
Then Dave (drzax, not zappa) said:
>You can't possibly be serious.
Sure I can. I'm VERY serious about my opinions -- aren't you? I also
recognize they are not necessarily shared by others and I know the difference
between an opinion and a fact.
My opinion of Chopin is stated above. From your response, I would say you
disagree. My opinion doesn't make it a fact that he is over-rated any more
than your opinion makes him great.
Ceil
Jeremy Cook
I didn't think you were serious, either. Can you give us some specific
examples of the "tricks" to which you refer?
Walter Schmid
> > wares." -- Ceil
>
>
Unfortunately(?!) I didn't receive the original message from Ceil
for technical reasons. (a blank sheet only)
Perhaps she (or he???) is an always very happy person. Chopin
didn't make music for happy persons, except perhaps Nocturne op.
9,2 which isn't really a good piece. His best works are all for
sad and unhappy people, even his dances, but they are the best
ever written for the modern piano.
But Rachmaninoff and Beethoven and Schubert and Schumann and
Brahms and Bruckner and Mahler and Alban Berg and Arnold
Schoenberg and most other composers didn't make much music for
happy persons too!
Conclusion: Happy persons are unhappy persons! ;-)
Regards
Walter
jcho...@my-dejanews.com
>
> "Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market his
> wares." -- Ceil
>
>
I have gathered from some of your older posts that you prefer say Brahms to
Chopin, but this quote sounds more like an active distaste.
Did you find the melody to "My Heart Will Go On" buried in one of his
Nocturnes or something? :-)
I kind of like his "tricks". I like the way he voices his harmonies, I like
the purely pianistic effects that strike me as original for his time. Isn't
there some talent to that?
Jim
XyZortC
Jeremy's inquiring mind wants to know --
>I didn't think you were serious, either. Can you give us some specific
>examples of the "tricks" to which you refer?
Chopin's music (with only a very few exceptions) just doesn't touch anything in
me -- I've listened to various recordings and live performances; I've played
it; either way, it hits me as "just sterile notes from a page" -- nothing
touches me inside. I can't find anything sensual or sexual or happy or sad or
extreme _anything_. It's hollow. Again, that's my _opinion_. It just isn't
"there" for me.
I think it's because of my lack of emotional reaction that I am offended by
what I see as 'tricks' (admitedly, some of the same tricks used by other
composers - but composers that I really like, so it doesn't offend me when they
do it).
The section of the piece commonly known as the Rainbow Fantasy later done in
Hollywood as I'm Always Chasing Rainbows uses nothing more than the basic I IV
V chords. So? Big Deal, Freddie. All the music school dropouts do it.
22 against 19; 7 against 24; 6 against 14 -- these are football scores, not
music! Yes, yes, everybody does it - but I LIKE it in Debussy & Brahms &
Sinding & others. It _fits_ when they do it -- and they don't _over_ do it.
A few pieces that I've been on the verge of thinking were nice (Fm Nocturne
comes to mind) had a good funeral dirge going and then he tosses in a little
trill. Ack! What's that all about? Make up your mind, Fred. Are you
lethargic or not? It's fine to be manic, but not three times in the same
measure.
In Freddie's music I don't hear the soft, sweet, sensitive, tragic, forlorn,
soul that others hear -- I hear a confused, pathetic, weak, wannabe that
failed to mature to the point of being able to decide if he was Polish or
French, rich or poor, clueless or classless, happy or sad, in love or in lust.
But then, that's my _opinion_.
Ceil
XyZortC
And another thing -- the Johnny-One-Note song (aka Raindrop Prelude). We got
it, already! Enough! How many pages does it _take_ to make a point?
Ceil
David Place
Gee. I sense some vaguely disguised hostility here. Everybody else
thinks Chopin was one of the greatest composers of the 19th century.
(Charles Rosen devotes three long chapters to Copin's work in his
book _The Romantic Generation_.) Maybe you should do some "lost
memory retrieval" therapy and find out who did this to you. :-)
Jeff Harrison
(XyZortC) wrote:
> In Freddie's music I don't hear the soft, sweet, sensitive, tragic, forlorn,
> soul that others hear -- I hear a confused, pathetic, weak, wannabe that
> failed to mature to the point of being able to decide if he was Polish or
> French, rich or poor, clueless or classless, happy or sad, in love or in lust.
>
> But then, that's my _opinion_.
And folks, let's be honest - Ceil is pretty well know around here and
you'd have to say that her opinion is, at the very least, an INFORMED
OPINION - unlike those that say MOST 20th century is junk without hearing,
studying, or playing a decent representation of it.
FWIW, I can understand how she feels this way even though I don't.
Chopin's style is quite recognisable and pretty distinct and if that sound
doesn't do it for you after a good shake, c'est la vie.
Jeff Harrison
XyZortC
>FWIW, I can understand how she feels this way even though I don't.
>Chopin's style is quite recognisable and pretty distinct and if that sound
>doesn't do it for you after a good shake, c'est la vie.
>
>Jeff Harrison
Thank you and well-said, Jeff.
And for those who think I need some retro-therapy, ponder this: I understand
_some_ people don't care much for Beethoven. Does that mean they were
frightened by a deaf guy when they were babes? And some people don't get hot
over Liszt. Does that mean they have a deep-seated fear of suffering from an
inability to grow warts? And some people are not enamored with Copland. Does
that mean they once fell from the top of an Appalacian peak in the Spring?
Doubt it. Probably just means they don't care for that particular music.
Simple.
Ceil
Walter Schmid
I disliked Chopin too when I was a small boy, but I *learned* to
love him. You must be able to learn, he is a great composer, much
greater than Liszt or Copland. You seem to be unwilling to
*learn*, then stay stupid! You can say you don't love him that is
o.k., but if you say he is "overrated" you are just demonstrating
you ignorance! It is not necessary to cry your inability around
the whole world!
Regard
Walter
John Sowalsky
> I disliked Chopin too when I was a small boy, but I *learned* to
> love him. You must be able to learn, he is a great composer, much
> greater than Liszt or Copland. You seem to be unwilling to
> *learn*, then stay stupid! You can say you don't love him that is
> o.k., but if you say he is "overrated" you are just demonstrating
> you ignorance! It is not necessary to cry your inability around
> the whole world!
Whoah! It's not as if "overrated" is a dirty word! It just means that maybe Chopin
has enjoyed a disproportionate amount of recognition when compared to some of his
contemporaries who may, arguably, have demonstrated equal talent. This statement
could be applied to almost any highly acclaimed composer from any period, depending
upon the personal preferences (i.e., opinions) of the listener.
IMO.
--
John Sowalsky
sowa...@erols.com
dr...@aol.com
Yea, but what you fail to recognise is that Chopin expanded the musical
language to a point where it had never been before. In fact, musically
speaking, no one would make as much of a contribution to western music after
him until Debussy. This coupled with the fact that his style has influenced
countless composers does indeed warrent the title of great composer, at least
for me.
Now, your talking about the fact that his music doesn't emotionally inspire
you. Well, I don't think a subjective opinion can be a testament to the
greatness of a composer. For example, I've never been particularly thrilled
by alot of Beethovens music. However, I would never contest the greatness of
him as a composer or his innovativeness. The moral is that you have to look
at where music had evolved to when these composers lived to get a sense of
their contribution. Sorry to say, but if Mozart showed up today writing the
same kind of music he did in the late 1700's, he would most likely be
entirely unnoticed (which is why modern classical composers strive to compose
music which sounds different from anything that's ever been done before).
Cheers,
Dave
CWhite0714
<<I disliked Chopin too when I was a small boy, but I *learned* to
love him. You must be able to learn, he is a great composer, much
greater than Liszt or Copland. You seem to be unwilling to
*learn*, then stay stupid!>>
When I was in music school, I met a Russian violinist who had to defend herself
against the Americans who couldn't understand how she could not like Coca-Cola.
She said that it was an acquired taste (like most alcohol). Does that mean that
she was acting like a small girl not to *learn* to like it? I think anyone who
says so about Coke *or* Chopin is being just a mite presumptuous. . . .
Carl Tait
>>[...]
>>> I find just about all contemporary classical music
>>> an utter disgrace to musical achievement in general
>
>>That's what they used to say about Beethoven's music too. At least try to
>>be original.
>
>does *not* mean it can never be true.
Right. To quote from "Bedazzled," an old Dudley Moore movie:
Dudley: You're a nut case!
Satan: They said that about a lot of geniuses.
Dudley: They said it about a lot of nut cases, too!
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Carl Tait
XyZortC <xyz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Chopin's music (with only a very few exceptions) just doesn't touch
Surprising, but I believe you. A few comments:
>[...]
>The section of the piece commonly known as the Rainbow Fantasy later done in
>Hollywood as I'm Always Chasing Rainbows uses nothing more than the basic I IV
>V chords. So? Big Deal, Freddie. All the music school dropouts do it.
This was published after Chopin's death; he had requested that it be burned.
>22 against 19; 7 against 24; 6 against 14 -- these are football scores, not
>music! Yes, yes, everybody does it - but I LIKE it in Debussy & Brahms &
>Sinding & others. It _fits_ when they do it -- and they don't _over_ do it.
Interesting: I would have said that Chopin uses complex polyrhythms
*less* frequently than most post-1820 composers. Most of the exceptions
are in the overblown passagework of early pieces like the concertos.
>[...]
>In Freddie's music I don't hear the soft, sweet, sensitive, tragic, forlorn,
>soul that others hear -- I hear a confused, pathetic, weak, wannabe that
>failed to mature to the point of being able to decide if he was Polish or
>French, rich or poor, clueless or classless, happy or sad, in love or in lust.
>
>But then, that's my _opinion_.
Again, no argument, but I just wanted to make sure you'd heard these:
Ballades 1 and 4
Etudes Op. 10 (Nos. 1-5, 12) and Op. 25 (Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12)
Funeral March Sonata
Nocturnes Opp. 27/1, 27/2, 48/1, 55/2
Polonaise-Fantaisie
Barcarolle
If you're familiar with some or all of these pieces and don't like them,
then you're right: you really don't like Chopin!
David Place
wrote:
>[...]
>
>Whoah! It's not as if "overrated" is a dirty word! It just means that maybe Chopin
>has enjoyed a disproportionate amount of recognition when compared to some of his
>contemporaries who may, arguably, have demonstrated equal talent. This statement
>could be applied to almost any highly acclaimed composer from any period, depending
>upon the personal preferences (i.e., opinions) of the listener.
>
If anything Chopin has been underrated -- to the degree where editors
changed notes from the manuscript in order to "fix" his harmony. In
fact, he was a brilliant contrapuntalist with a deep knowledge of
music that preceeded him -- especially J.S. Bach. The fact that he
didn't write symphonies kept him out of the 19th century pantheon
until people relatively recently realized his true genius.
John Sowalsky
> If anything Chopin has been underrated -- to the degree where editors
> changed notes from the manuscript in order to "fix" his harmony. In
> fact, he was a brilliant contrapuntalist with a deep knowledge of
> music that preceeded him -- especially J.S. Bach. The fact that he
> didn't write symphonies kept him out of the 19th century pantheon
> until people relatively recently realized his true genius.
I have no doubt you are much more qualified than I am to speak about this, since I'm a
relative rookie. My point was not so much about Chopin, but about what it means to be
overrated. Just thought I'd clarify. :-)
--
John Sowalsky
sowa...@erols.com
Jeremy Cook
>
> >FWIW, I can understand how she feels this way even though I don't.
> >Chopin's style is quite recognisable and pretty distinct and if that sound
> >doesn't do it for you after a good shake, c'est la vie.
> >
> >Jeff Harrison
>
> Thank you and well-said, Jeff.
>
> And for those who think I need some retro-therapy, ponder this: I understand
> _some_ people don't care much for Beethoven. Does that mean they were
> frightened by a deaf guy when they were babes? And some people don't get hot
> over Liszt. Does that mean they have a deep-seated fear of suffering from an
> inability to grow warts? And some people are not enamored with Copland. Does
> that mean they once fell from the top of an Appalacian peak in the Spring?
>
> Doubt it. Probably just means they don't care for that particular music.
> Simple.
Not really. I have been able to trace back my former dislike for
Schumann to a childhood trauma involving the local cobbler. And I
discovered that my fear of Bach stemmed from a repressed memory
involving my baby bottle being filled with Octoberfest beer by a
prankster. After extensive therapy, I have overcome these crippling
neuroses and count both of these composers among my favorites. But I
still can't listen to Berg since I saw "Titanic." Can't figure that one
out for the life of me. ;-)
Walter Schmid
>
> Whoah! It's not as if "overrated" is a dirty word! It just means that maybe Chopin
> has enjoyed a disproportionate amount of recognition when compared to some of his
> contemporaries who may, arguably, have demonstrated equal talent. This statement
> could be applied to almost any highly acclaimed composer from any period, depending
> upon the personal preferences (i.e., opinions) of the listener.
>
The best can never be overrated! The best composers for piano
are: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms. All
others are a sort of second class (for the piano at least: Haydn,
Weber, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Liszt).
There are no more great piano composers in the 18th and 19th
century. Chopin is better than his contemporaries Schumann and
Liszt. Therefore he is the absolutely best of his epoch.
Believe me: I know 95 % of all the piano works of these
composers, and have studied them.
Regards
Walter
Walter Schmid
>
>
> When I was in music school, I met a Russian violinist who had to defend herself
> against the Americans who couldn't understand how she could not like Coca-Cola.
> She said that it was an acquired taste (like most alcohol). Does that mean that
> she was acting like a small girl not to *learn* to like it? I think anyone who
> says so about Coke *or* Chopin is being just a mite presumptuous. . . .
It is not absolutely the same. Taste of the tongue is chemistry.
There are many constants one cannot change, but the ear you can
always enhance in the way up from simpler music to better one.
The other direction is *sometimes* blocked.
But you also can learn bad music you like to be bad and
eventually hate it.
But you are not obliged to do so. Just enjoy bad music if you
like it :-)
I really envy sometimes people who like bad music! ;-)
Regards
Walter
John Sowalsky
> There are no more great piano composers in the 18th and 19th
> century. Chopin is better than his contemporaries Schumann and
> Liszt. Therefore he is the absolutely best of his epoch.
>
> Believe me: I know 95 % of all the piano works of these
> composers, and have studied them.
I will believe this when my own understanding brings me to such a conclusion. I claim to
be no expert... far from it. However, such broad blanket statements rarely sit well with
me. You are stating opinion as fact, which is common enough in these newsgroups, I
suppose...
Just my own humble and ignorant opinion.
--
John Sowalsky
sowa...@erols.com
David Kaiser
literally unequalled feel for the piano, what could be done with it, and how to
play it, which is very apparent to anyone who has studied many of the etudes.
(There are about 6 of them that I've been slaving at off and on for 20 years or so,
including the first and the last, and I never get tired of them.)
Which brings me to another point: the form of the etudes is very similar to
popular songs; and Chopin and Bach are unequalled at getting emotion into
relatively short forms. They teach you respect for short forms. (I'm trying to
put together a recital program composed of the two of them.)
And when Chopin goes to a longer form, I'm not sure anyone has managed to put
so much contrasting emotion into relatively short pieces. The most amazing
examples, for me, are the first movement of the Funeral March Sonata, which I can't
play, and the third Scherzo, which I can. They are both loosely based on classical
sonata form but it would be hard to find a classical sonata that has such mood
changes, and they flow quite naturally.
I'm sorry for Ceil. Even though she'll probably hate me for saying that. He
is not a wimp. Try those last two opus 25 etudes. Or any scherzo. And he really
understands grief, which the classicists don't (except maybe very late Beethoven.)
Try the Poloniase Fantasie.
David Kaiser
Michael Subotin
... was doing well until
> And he really
> understands grief, which the classicists don't (except maybe very late > Beethoven.)
Whoa! Classicists didn't *understand* grief? What kind of a statement
is that? So, perhaps the high-classical aesthetic wasn't affect-
oriented in the way romanticism was... then what?
Rasiel
Michael Subotin wrote in message <3622EA...@shalt.not.spam>...
And all of this goes to show that in the end it all boils down to de
gustibus non est disputandum.
If to some a splatter of paint on a canvas is a painting, random words on a
page poetry and dropping a can of tuna on piano strings music (all common
hallmarks of 20th century art) then so be it. For me an essential ingredient
in art, *especially* music, is simply talent.
Personally I think Beethoven understood grief like few other composers did
and as early as Op. 13. What's the Hammerklavier about anyway? But if on
listening to Beethoven you hear no grief or sorrow or tension whatsoever
then that's that.
Philippe Jonckheere
XyZortC a écrit dans le message
<19981012104059...@ng146.aol.com>...
>snip<
>In Freddie's music I don't hear the soft, sweet, sensitive, tragic,
forlorn,
>soul that others hear -- I hear a confused, pathetic, weak, wannabe that
>failed to mature to the point of being able to decide if he was Polish or
>French, rich or poor, clueless or classless, happy or sad, in love or in
>lust.
Well, this guy wasn't 23 when he already had revolutionized the way we play
piano...(for I suppose that as a pianist you spent some time on the etudes,
tough ?)
You may not like his music but you still can't ignore his pianistical
importance, or do you ?
PJ
XyZortC
>Again, no argument, but I just wanted to make >sure you'd heard these:
Carl -
Most of my music is at the studio, so I can't verify exact #'s (yes, I even OWN
Chopin and have actually taught a little of his music), but commenting on a few
as well as memory serves:
>Etudes Op. 10 (Nos. 1-5, 12) and Op. 25 (Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12)
Just the opposite of Will Rogers - never met a Freddie Etude I liked.
>Funeral March Sonata
Not his worst.
>Nocturnes Opp. 27/1, 27/2, 48/1, 55/2
There is _one_ Nocturne I do actually like but can't remember the number. I've
studied half a dozen and have heard most of them.
>Polonaise-Fantaisie
Um . . . ick. (Same for his Mazurkas & Waltzes)
>Barcarolle
Can't place this one.
>If you're familiar with some or all of these pieces and don't like them,
>then you're right: you really don't like Chopin!
>--
>Carl Tait
Told ya.
Ceil
XyZortC
David Kaiser writes --
>Given the nature of this list, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned Chopin's
>literally unequalled feel for the piano, what could be done with it, and how
>to
>play it, which is very apparent to anyone who has studied many of the etudes.
I'm not trying to be difficult - just to understand. What do you hear in
Chopin that makes you say "unequaled feel for the piano . . . " ? (And I
assume you mean relating to composition, not performance.) What is it that
makes you place him so high above the others? What did he do that
wasn't/hasn't been done by a thousand other composers?
> I'm sorry for Ceil. Even though she'll probably hate me for saying that.
>
I don't hate you at all! I actually _like_ you for joining in civilized
discussion even though we don't agree. That's a good part of the attraction of
the newsgroup. But why would you feel sorry for me? Because you think I'm
missing out on the best music since sliced bread? I do enjoy a huge amount of
music by a whole truckload of composers - but not _all_ music and not _all_
composers. Maybe I'm missing something; maybe I'm not.
Tell me about a piece that most everyone else raves about but that you don't
like - I want to hear something special and individual about _you_ !
Ceil
CWhite0714
<<I really envy sometimes people who like bad music! ;-)>>
I have to agree with that.
Walter Schmid
>
> Walter Schmid wrote:
>
> > There are no more great piano composers in the 18th and 19th
> > century. Chopin is better than his contemporaries Schumann and
> > Liszt. Therefore he is the absolutely best of his epoch.
> >
> > Believe me: I know 95 % of all the piano works of these
> > composers, and have studied them.
>
> I will believe this when my own understanding brings me to such a conclusion. I claim to
> be no expert... far from it. However, such broad blanket statements rarely sit well with
> me. You are stating opinion as fact, which is common enough in these newsgroups, I
> suppose...
>
It was just an invitation to hear Chopin!
I am no native english speaker. I should write first in German
and then translate. If you pay me 20$ an hour I will make better
advertising for Chopin. ;-)
Regards
Walter
Charles Wilson
> XyZortC schrieb:
> >
> > >FWIW, I can understand how she feels this way even though I don't.
> > >Chopin's style is quite recognisable and pretty distinct and if that sound
> > >doesn't do it for you after a good shake, c'est la vie.
> > >
> > >Jeff Harrison
> >
> > Thank you and well-said, Jeff.
> >
> > And for those who think I need some retro-therapy, ponder this: I understand
> > _some_ people don't care much for Beethoven. Does that mean they were
> > frightened by a deaf guy when they were babes? And some people don't get hot
> > over Liszt. Does that mean they have a deep-seated fear of suffering from an
> > inability to grow warts? And some people are not enamored with Copland. Does
> > that mean they once fell from the top of an Appalacian peak in the Spring?
> >
> > Doubt it. Probably just means they don't care for that particular music.
> > Simple.
> >
>
> I disliked Chopin too when I was a small boy, but I *learned* to
> love him. You must be able to learn, he is a great composer, much
> greater than Liszt or Copland. You seem to be unwilling to
> *learn*, then stay stupid! You can say you don't love him that is
> o.k., but if you say he is "overrated" you are just demonstrating
> you ignorance! It is not necessary to cry your inability around
> the whole world!
>
> Regard
>
> Walter
Walter, I have met people who do not laugh, because they cannot see the humor in
anything. In all other respects they appeared to be normal. Trying to make such a
person laugh, or understand any sort of comedy was impossible.
I, however, find too many things that are funny (much more than most people), which
I am sure is equally annoying to others. I see humor where there isn't any (or at
least probably isn't any). For the last couple of months I have been driving around
with a tape of Rubenstein playing Chopin. I haven't yet grown tired of it. Each
hearing brings something new. Chopin touches my soul.
It appears, however, that Ceil is wired differently than I am. I suspect that some
of the music that she loves will completely turn me off. That doesn't prevent me
from respecting here opinions, however. She is capable of doing something that I
find impossible, which is teaching.
Vive la difference, it makes life much more interesting.
Charles
Randolph Fay
I am willing to be bet you CANNOT play Chopin's Raindrop Prelude, even
though it is only "one note"
IMO, it is a beautiful piece of music. The first time I heard it I was in
the car pulling up to an appointment I had. I had to wait 10 minutes for
the announcer to say who the composer was. I pretended to be writing on my
clipboard during the wait.
Randy Fay
l...@epix.net
Walter Schmid <schm...@datacomm.ch>
wrote:
> dr...@aol.com schrieb:
> >
> > In article <19981011152802...@ng64.aol.com>,
> > xyz...@aol.com (XyZortC) wrote:
> >
> > > "Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market his
> > > wares." -- Ceil
> >
> > You can't possibly be serious.
> >
>
> Perhaps she (or he???) is an always very happy person. Chopin
> didn't make music for happy persons. . .
I'm a happy person, and I rank Chop among the
top five composers of all time!
BTW, there is a very distinct bias toward the minor
keys (as well as modal variations that lean toward
what we call the diatonic minor) in Polish folk
music by which Chopin was obviously heavily
influenced. . .especially in his greatest works,
which in my opinion are the Mazurkas. . .
There is a peculiar Polish sentiment that they call
"Zal" (pronounced "shal") for which there is no
exact translation in any other language, but more or
less means an inexplicable wave of regret or
longing. It is not necessarily a bad feeling. In fact to
a Pole, a life without Zal is meaningless.
Mozart (or someone) once said "never is a Pole
happier than when he is sad." And that about sums
it up.
George Gilliland
XyZortC
>Ceil,
>
>I am willing to be bet you CANNOT play Chopin's Raindrop Prelude, even
>though it is only "one note"
Randy --
Sigh. Yes, I can play the Raindrop. I began piano lessons when I was six and
studied through grade school, high school, and college. I started teaching a
few years out of college. I am now 46. That makes for 40 years of playing and
20 years of teaching. To the best of my recollection, I must have been about
14 when my teacher first put the Raindrop in front of me.
I have had several students who played the Raindrop. I have had some students
who loooooooooove Chopin, some who were indifferent, and a few who shared my
opinion.
>IMO, it is a beautiful piece of music. The first time I heard it I was in
>the car pulling up to an appointment I had. I had to wait 10 minutes for
>the announcer to say who the composer was. I pretended to be writing on my
>clipboard during the wait.
>
>Randy Fay
I'm glad you discovered a piece of music that made you put life on hold for a
few minutes.
Ceil
l...@epix.net
> Tell me about a piece that most everyone else raves about but that you don't
> like - I want to hear something special and individual about _you_ !
>
> Ceil
>
> "My Favorite Things," from"The Sound of Music." Is that Rogers and Hammerstein? Jeeze, I don't even know. How's that for opening one's self to all sorts of abuse?
Ceil, how you can like a thoroughly misguided
voluptuary who could not form a complete melodic
idea to save his life (Brahms, of course), and
dislike the greatest melodic genius since Bach is
truly astonishing.
In fact Brahms is a perfect example of how it takes
much more than sheer compositional muscle to
compose great music.
My daughter is a violinist who loves Brahms, but
who will be the first to admit that she cannot find a
single, basic melodic thread in any Brahms
compositions (that she knows). In her (14-year-
old) words: "I don't think Brahms really had any
ideas; he just has a really rich sound that's fun to
play."
And what could be more "dry" than Debussy? His
music (to me) is like a good champagne that is
very seductive at first sip, but has you waking up
the next morning swearing your head will explode
any second.
I like Brahms and Debussy for what they are, and
in spite of their weaknesses. And of course I
respect your opinion, but I cannot help but to
conclude that you are (in musical terms of course)
emotionally very confused if you can't appreciate
Chop.
pTooner
Chopin is and will remain popular among adolescents because his music is big, moody,
confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin, by the way.
Gerry
Jeremy Cook wrote:
> XyZortC wrote:
> >
> > >FWIW, I can understand how she feels this way even though I don't.
> > >Chopin's style is quite recognisable and pretty distinct and if that sound
> > >doesn't do it for you after a good shake, c'est la vie.
> > >
> > >Jeff Harrison
> >
> > Thank you and well-said, Jeff.
> >
> > And for those who think I need some retro-therapy, ponder this: I understand
> > _some_ people don't care much for Beethoven. Does that mean they were
> > frightened by a deaf guy when they were babes? And some people don't get hot
> > over Liszt. Does that mean they have a deep-seated fear of suffering from an
> > inability to grow warts? And some people are not enamored with Copland. Does
> > that mean they once fell from the top of an Appalacian peak in the Spring?
> >
> > Doubt it. Probably just means they don't care for that particular music.
> > Simple.
>
> Not really. I have been able to trace back my former dislike for
> Schumann to a childhood trauma involving the local cobbler. And I
> discovered that my fear of Bach stemmed from a repressed memory
> involving my baby bottle being filled with Octoberfest beer by a
> prankster. After extensive therapy, I have overcome these crippling
> neuroses and count both of these composers among my favorites. But I
> still can't listen to Berg since I saw "Titanic." Can't figure that one
> out for the life of me. ;-)
--
Art 2.0
David Place
wrote:
>I almost never comment on these "great composer" threads but I feel the urge here.
>Chopin is and will remain popular among adolescents because his music is big, moody,
>confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin, by the way.
>
>Gerry
>
Would you elaborate in what way Chopin's music is "confused"?
LMering
In article <6vuldm$e0h$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Rasiel"
<ras...@yahoo.com> writes:
>And all of this goes to show that in the end it all boils down to de
>gustibus non est disputandum.
Well said!
Linda (lmering)
LMering
>
>My daughter is a violinist who loves Brahms, but
>who will be the first to admit that she cannot find a
>single, basic melodic thread in any Brahms
>compositions (that she knows). In her (14-year-
>old) words: "I don't think Brahms really had any
>ideas; he just has a really rich sound that's fun to
>play."
>
>
Hi -
Have you and your daughter heard the Brahms Waltzes, Op. 39? The famous Waltz
in A-flat, among other pieces in this marvelous work, surely has a "basic
melodic thread."
And then there's the "Lullaby" -- !!
Perhaps you were referring only to the instrumental works; but in the German
Requiem, there are lots of melodies, including the famous "How Lovely is Thy
Dwelling Place."
Overall, it could perhaps be argued persuasively that Brahms was not primarily
a "melodist." (If that's a word.) ...... Probably in this ng we are all
developing a certain sensitivity about use of words implying "never" and
"always!"
Linda (lmering)
Walter Schmid
>
> I almost never comment on these "great composer" threads but I feel the urge here.
> Chopin is and will remain popular among adolescents because his music is big, moody,
> confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin, by the way.
LOL
Is something "EASY TO PLAY"? which only Arthur Rubinstein and
sometimes some other great pianists as Horowitz (Op 16!!!) or
Maurizio Pollini (op. 10 and 25) can really play ???
I play it myself of course, but only when I am alone!
Regards
Walter
John Sowalsky
> It was just an invitation to hear Chopin!
>
> I am no native english speaker. I should write first in German
> and then translate. If you pay me 20$ an hour I will make better
> advertising for Chopin. ;-)
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to over-react... :O
I'll shut up now... and go I'll find some recordings of Chopin... ;-)
--
John Sowalsky
sowa...@erols.com
Alexander Pensky
>I almost never comment on these "great composer" threads but I feel the
urge here.
>Chopin is and will remain popular among adolescents because his music is
big, moody,
>confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin, by the way.
Gee, if you think Chopin is easy to play, try some Mozart.
That's even simpler! :-)
l...@epix.net
19981013111333...@ngol06.aol.co
m>,
Yes, quite true, there are more than a few snips of
pretty melody in Brahms, and they can often be
clearly heard above the tonnage of turgid
harmonies.
Just as there are more than a few bars of very
clever harmony in Chopin, lurking beneath the
superficial "tricks."
In short, we all have our tastes, but lucky is the
person on this newsgroup who possesses the
qualifications to call Brahms a dullard or Chopin a
trickster. Unless of course that person is a certified
musicologist ;-)
Luckier still is the person for whom Chopin is
"easy to play." I've only heard one person who I
thought made it sound easy, and that was
Rubinstein. Chops like that place one in very elite
company. . .
George
Mike Imbler
composer for piano, and I hope eventually to play all his works), I
think we owe Ceil a word of thanks for opening a fun and rewarding topic.
I am enjoying seeing the passionate defenses and/or criticisms of musical
choices. Many, like Ceil's are very articulate; and we usually learn more
from those we disagree with than those who share our opinions!
Regards, Mike
XyZortC <xyz...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981012233033...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
Alexander Pensky
Walter Schmid wrote in message <362375AC...@datacomm.ch>...
>Is something "EASY TO PLAY"? which only Arthur Rubinstein and
>sometimes some other great pianists as Horowitz (Op 16!!!) or
>Maurizio Pollini (op. 10 and 25) can really play ???
>
I'd like to start another thread on this...
Is there *anyone* now alive and recording who plays
Chopin decently?
Most posters here seem to like Pollini but I find him loud
and robotic. I do like Rubinstein, but he's long dead.
I always liked the old Klein recording of the Preludes, but
that was made almost 50 years ago.
Has the playing of Chopin become a lost 19th c. art?
- Alex
Eric Gorely
Kirk Dupont
> > >
> > > > "Chopin was an over-rated composer who used tricks, not talent, to market his
> > > > wares." -- Ceil
When I was in my teens, musically uneducated, impressionable, and vastly
ignorant of the majority the piano repertoire, I believed that the
greatest piano composer of all time was Frederic Chopin. Now, after 20
years as a performer and composer, a conservatory education, and a great
deal of exposure to the piano repertoire, I believe that the greatest
piano composer of all time was... Frederic Chopin.
To me, that's the true test of genius - music that transcends time, age,
educational level, and culture. I'm every bit as moved and enthralled
when I hear a great Chopin work today as I was 20 years ago. I must say
that no other composer has ever done that for me, with the possible
exception of Bach. How can anyone not melt upon hearing the F minor
ballade?!?!?!?!?
Take Care!
Kirk
pTooner
Alexander Pensky wrote:
Thanks, I'll look into it. I never played much Mozart.
Gerry
--
Art 2.0
jcho...@my-dejanews.com
pTooner <ge...@geddings.net> wrote:
> Chopin is and will remain popular among adolescents because his music is big, moody,
> confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin, by the way.
>
> Gerry
Pretty bold statement, I'd say. Some of the Preludes are easy, and I'll admit
that Ceil's detested Fantasy Impromptu is easier than it sounds, but geez, I
really wish that I could say Chopin is easy to play.
I've been trying to learn the Ballade in Gm off and on for twenty years or
so, and sometimes I can blunder my way through it pretty well until I get to
the closing Presto con fuoco - I just can't bring that up to speed. I don't
know if I can ever hope to play the Revolutionary Etude, or (I forget which)
Polonaise.
(Maybe if I spent more time practicing than reading this newsgroup. :-)
Jim
Walter Schmid
>
compose great music.
>
> My daughter is a violinist who loves Brahms, but
> who will be the first to admit that she cannot find a
> single, basic melodic thread in any Brahms
There is one: the Finale of the 1st Symphony !!!
(Bar 61ff, the main theme)
But I love Brahms all the same. The two piano concertos are
marvellous!
Regards
Walter
Walter Schmid
>
> Although my opinion is the opposite of Ceil's (Chopin is my favorite
> composer for piano, and I hope eventually to play all his works), I
> think we owe Ceil a word of thanks for opening a fun and rewarding topic.
LOL
Should I say I hate Beethoven? ;-)
Regards
Walter
Walter Schmid
>
> I'd have to say my favorite is Vladimir Ashkenazy.
Yes, sometimes, but ONLY Rubinstein ever!
>
> Alexander Pensky wrote:
>
> > Walter Schmid wrote in message <362375AC...@datacomm.ch>...
> >
> > >Is something "EASY TO PLAY"? which only Arthur Rubinstein and
> > >sometimes some other great pianists as Horowitz (Op 16!!!) or
> > >Maurizio Pollini (op. 10 and 25) can really play ???
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to start another thread on this...
> > Is there *anyone* now alive and recording who plays
> > Chopin decently?
> >
> > Most posters here seem to like Pollini but I find him loud
Only Etudes and Sonatas. Scherzi he plays too fast, they are too
easy for him!
> > and robotic. I do like Rubinstein, but he's long dead.
> > I always liked the old Klein recording of the Preludes, but
> > that was made almost 50 years ago.
> >
Regards
Walter
Trey Behan
>I began piano lessons when I was six and
>studied through grade school, high school, and college. I started teaching
>a
>few years out of college. I am now 46. That makes for 40 years of playing
>and
>20 years of teaching.
What has mystified me about this incredibly drawn-out thread is this: Why can't
this woman, an experienced educator, express an informed OPINION regarding her
personal tastes without legions of contributors impugning everything from her
playing ability to her mental health?
George Bush dislikes broccoli, and I'm not too crazy about Rocky Road ice
cream. Does this mean we deserve to be somehow criticized or reformed?
Both Chopin and Marilyn Manson have their admirers and detractors, and so
should it be. Is there really a point to continuing these harrassments and
rebuttals on a simple matter of TASTE?
Trey Behan
Boyer/Sheers
>
>
(snip)
> George Bush dislikes broccoli, and I'm not too crazy about Rocky Road ice
> cream. Does this mean we deserve to be somehow criticized or reformed?
>
> Both Chopin and Marilyn Manson have their admirers and detractors, and so
> should it be. Is there really a point to continuing these harrassments and
> rebuttals on a simple matter of TASTE?
>
> Trey Behan
Clearly, someone who doesn't like broccoli IS of questionable mental
health, and someone who doesn't like Rocky Road ... well, you just don't
know how to eat!
Bill B.
Seriously, though, it would be naive to believe that just because Ceil
is an experienced piano teacher who has contributed interesting things
for some time, (has anyone heard her play, though?) she should not
expect all sorts of criticism when she goes against what is obviously
not the opinion of the vast majority of pianists and musicians. While I
find Chopin tiring in some pieces (especially the ones that are played
to death) other pieces have provided the most moving experiences I've
had with solo piano literature. A few questionably more moving moments
in my life have involved singing in large choirs with an orchestra.)
To be honest, I've never cared much for Mozart. Dinner music, by and
large. :)
John Brock
[...]
>Sorry to say, but if Mozart showed up today writing the
>same kind of music he did in the late 1700's, he would most likely be
>entirely unnoticed (which is why modern classical composers strive to compose
>music which sounds different from anything that's ever been done before).
Suppose Mozart, for some obscure reason, decided to take some of his
very best music and hide it away. If I were to discover this cache of
previously unknown masterpieces (and let's say they are manuscripts in
Mozart's own hand, so there will be no doubt as to authenticity) it
would absolutely turn the music world on its ear. Is there any doubt
about this?
Now, think about this: Is there any doubt that if I were to take these
same notes, set them on my PC, and try to get the results published as
my own work, that they would be dismissed as "derivative", and that I
would be advised to put my talents to better use and find an original
voice for myself? Do you think I could find a publisher, or that any
orchestra would be willing to play this music?
So which is it? Are these pieces -- the same notes in both cases --
masterpieces, or are they unimportant imitations? I think this is a
important question, because it seems very strange to me that the
greatness of a piece of music should lie, even in part, in the name
printed at the top of the score, rather than being inherent in the
notes below. (Note: I started out meaning to use this argument to
blast the 20th century Cult of Originality, but at the last minute I
started to get this nagging feeling that things reallly wouldn't have
been much different in the 19th or 18th centuries -- although the music
would probably have been dismissed as unfashionable rather than
unoriginal, so it's perhaps not *quite* the same thing).
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
XyZortC
>I really envy sometimes people who like bad music! ;-)
>Regards
>
>Walter
Now why would you envy those people? You already admitted to liking Chopin . .
.
Ceil
JUST KIDDING, PLEASE!
XyZortC
Dave (drzax) writes --
>Yea, but what you fail to recognise is that Chopin expanded the musical
>language to a point where it had never been before. In fact, musically
>speaking, no one would make as much of a contribution to western music after
>him until Debussy. This coupled with the fact that his style has influenced
>countless composers (snip)
Certainly his style influenced others - the same as those before him influenced
_his_ writing - especially Bach, Czerny, & Hummel. He did not invent
everything - but he did add to, improvise, & twist many things -- which is
basically what all composers have been doing for centuries.
Would his music have lasted to present day if it had not been publically
performed and popularized by the great showman Liszt?
Ceil
David Place
<Alex....@software.rockwell.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I'd like to start another thread on this...
>Is there *anyone* now alive and recording who plays
>Chopin decently?
>
[...]
Louis Lortie's Etudes on Chandos are amazing.
David Place
[...]
>
>What has mystified me about this incredibly drawn-out thread is this: Why can't
>this woman, an experienced educator, express an informed OPINION regarding her
>personal tastes without legions of contributors impugning everything from her
>playing ability to her mental health?
>
She didn't state her opinion as one of personal taste, but as value
judgements on the music. "tricks" and "harmony used by music school
dropouts" are views of Chopin's music that are highly disputable and
make you wonder if the music has really been comprehended. If she had
just said that Chopin didn't strike her fancy, there would be nothing
to discuss. Then the argument that taste is undisputable would hold.
She specifically maligned the poor dear in a way that we all have felt
a need to defend him. If even after you have studied Chopin's music
in a way to comprehend that he was a master contrapuntist, you still
don't "like" his music -- that's fine. You certainly can't still
promote the idea that he was like a music school dropout.
XyZortC
>Suppose Mozart, for some obscure reason, decided to take some of his
>very best music and hide it away. If I were to discover this cache of
>previously unknown masterpieces (snip) it
>would absolutely turn the music world on its ear. Is there any doubt
>about this?
I don't think even the most argumentative poster could doubt the tremendous
impact a find like that would have.
>Now, think about this: Is there any doubt that if I were to take these
>same notes, set them on my PC, and try to get the results published as
>my own work, that they would be dismissed as "derivative", and that I
>would be advised to put my talents to better use and find an original
>voice for myself? Do you think I could find a publisher, or that any
>orchestra would be willing to play this music?
If you start with the assumption that Mozart's music was great, you would be
holding manuscripts of more great music and you could probably find a publisher
and an orchestra who would prounouce it great (or at least very good) music -
but, IMO, you probably wouldn't receive even the smallest fraction of
attention with your name on the page compared to the reaction you would have if
Mozart's name were attached.
>So which is it? Are these pieces -- the same notes in both cases --
>masterpieces, or are they unimportant imitations? I think this is a
>important question, because it seems very strange to me that the
>greatness of a piece of music should lie, even in part, in the name
>printed at the top of the score, rather than being inherent in the
>notes below.
Well, yes, the greatness should lie in the music and not in the name. But
think of all the times you've heard or seen someone extremely talented -
singer, instrumentalist, actor, whatever - at a local or regional club and
thought "man, they could really make it big" -- but, of course, they don't make
it.
They don't have the connections or the name or something to give them the edge
over the other hundreds or thousands of talented people.
Think of all the times you've seen the son or daughter of someone who did make
it and wondered if they would have gone anywhere if it hadn't been for the fact
that mom or dad was already famous and had the name and had the connections.
Ceil
greg presley
disgraceful. I have enjoyed the music of nearly every composer
transmitted to me by the hands of others. But pianists live the life of
the composer as they play his music, since they play the same notes in
the same space, with the same body posture, etc. In other words, they
inhabit the composer's mind and body as they play his music. Is is so
surprising that sometimes the fit is not a good one? I have felt the
adrenalin and rage in my body as I play the Prokofiev Seventh Sonata. I
have felt the manic energy of Scriabin as I play some of his Etudes. I
have felt the laughter bubbling inside Haydn in his Sonatas. Sometimes
I'm comfortable with these feelings, and sometimes I'm not. When I'm not,
I don't play the music anymore. Obviously, at that point I can no longer
communicate the composer's intention through the medium of my body and
mind.I have yet to find the Schubert in me. But Bartok, Prokofiev,
Ginastera, Barber,Stravinsky, Copland and many others of the 20th century
are a happy fit in my body and mind (or vice-versa) and I think the
audience senses that connection and follows, even if the sound is
unfamiliar to their ears. If Chopin cannot live inside Ceil's body, or
she inside his, please don't force the issue! The result will not be
great music - since there is no great music on paper - it only becomes
that in the living (and loving)
performance. Greg Presley
Chin
>
>BTW, there is a very distinct bias toward the minor
>keys (as well as modal variations that lean toward
>what we call the diatonic minor) in Polish folk
>music by which Chopin was obviously heavily
>influenced. . .especially in his greatest works,
>which in my opinion are the Mazurkas. . .
>
>
Well, I simply love Chopin's Ballades (all 4 of 'em) and the Bb Sonata.
Simply wonderful pieces of work. Anyone to 2nd me on this?
Trey Behan
>is an experienced piano teacher who has contributed interesting things
>for some time, (has anyone heard her play, though?) she should not
>expect all sorts of criticism when she goes against what is obviously
>not the opinion of the vast majority of pianists and musicians.
I suppose you're right. I can well imagine the slings and arrows endured by
those scholars who rescued Bach, long considered a mere journeyman, and who
promoted his genius until the "vast majority" agreed.
As to my personal tastes, I am far more interested in iconoclastic viewpoints
than in dogmatic ones. These have traditionally been the roots of progress,
especially in music.
Trey Behan
Chris Newman
John Brock wrote in message <7016rb$a...@panix.com>...
>Suppose Mozart, for some obscure reason, decided to take some of his
>very best music and hide it away. If I were to discover this cache of
>would absolutely turn the music world on its ear. Is there any doubt
>about this?
>
>same notes, set them on my PC, and try to get the results published as
>my own work, that they would be dismissed as "derivative", and that I
>would be advised to put my talents to better use and find an original
>voice for myself? Do you think I could find a publisher, or that any
>orchestra would be willing to play this music?
>
>masterpieces, or are they unimportant imitations? I think this is a
>important question, because it seems very strange to me that the
>greatness of a piece of music should lie, even in part, in the name
>printed at the top of the score, rather than being inherent in the
>notes below
The greatness of the music needs to be considered in the context of the
*time* it was written. If you took those pieces back in time and passed
them off in the 18th century as your own, then *now* we would look upon you
as a genius. Even Mozart, had he lived in an earlier period (and written in
the style we know as Mozart) would probably have been completely dismissed.
There is also the requirement of originality - if you could write any music
in the same style of and of the same quality as a great composer you would
still not make it into the composers hall of fame.
ChrisN
Chin
pTooner wrote in message >confused ----- and EASY TO PLAY! I like Chopin,
by the way.
>
>Gerry
>
GAWD! Easy to play? Which piece? His Etudes? Sonatas? Preludes? Quick, you
gotta tell me, 'cos I must've been living under a shell too long.
John Brock
Chris Newman <cne...@softhome.net> wrote:
>John Brock wrote in message <7016rb$a...@panix.com>...
[...]
>>So which is it? Are these pieces -- the same notes in both cases --
>>masterpieces, or are they unimportant imitations? I think this is a
>>important question, because it seems very strange to me that the
>>greatness of a piece of music should lie, even in part, in the name
>>printed at the top of the score, rather than being inherent in the
>>notes below
>The greatness of the music needs to be considered in the context of the
>*time* it was written. If you took those pieces back in time and passed
>them off in the 18th century as your own, then *now* we would look upon you
>as a genius. Even Mozart, had he lived in an earlier period (and written in
>the style we know as Mozart) would probably have been completely dismissed.
If Mozart had gone back in time his style would have been completely
unfamiliar, and so it's understandable that it might have been
dismissed. I'm not convinced that it would have been though. Just
because most "advanced" 20th century music would certainly have been
dismissed in the 19th century, it does not automatically follow that
19th century music would have been dismissed in the 18th century, and
so on. It may be (and I know this is contentious) that there was much
more continuity between the earlier styles than between those styles
and 20th century music, so that Mozart's achievements could have been
appreciated in earlier times. I know that to my own ears the jump from
Mozart to Milton Babbitt sounds as extreme as the jump from Mozart to
Chinese or Indian music, while the jump from, say, Frescobaldi to
Mozart does not seem anywhere near as extreme.
But in any case, going forward in time does not present the same
problem, as going backward. We are familiar with the style of Mozart's
time, and so it seems to me that we ought to be able to judge whether a
piece written in that style is "great music" even without knowing who
wrote it.
>There is also the requirement of originality - if you could write any music
>in the same style of and of the same quality as a great composer you would
>still not make it into the composers hall of fame.
Perhaps originality is a requirement for being a great composer
(although, as I said previously, I have serious reservations about "the
20th century Cult of Originality"), but there is a difference between
saying that a piece of music was written by a great composer and saying
that the music *itself* is great. I was asking whether the music in my
hypothetical discovered manuscripts was great music, and it really does
seem to me that if we can't answer that question without knowing who
wrote the music then this in some way calls into question our whole
concept of what "great music" is.
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
bachch...@my-dejanews.com
4.
I never understand why Chopin idolized Mozart whose music does the
exactly same thing to me like what Chopin's does to Ceil. But I don't
see a point why I would start a thread like Ceil's - obviously, no
amount of persuasion, logical, factual or otherwise, can sway his/her
distaste for Chopin.
(And yes, Chopin's_my_idol.)
Andrew.
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:20:17 +0800, "Chin" <chi...@pc.jaring.my>
wrote:
(To reply, remove "bach" from address.)
bachch...@my-dejanews.com
Andrew.
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:35:36 -0400, "Alexander Pensky"
<Alex....@software.rockwell.com> wrote:
>
>Walter Schmid wrote in message <362375AC...@datacomm.ch>...
>
>>Is something "EASY TO PLAY"? which only Arthur Rubinstein and
>>sometimes some other great pianists as Horowitz (Op 16!!!) or
>>Maurizio Pollini (op. 10 and 25) can really play ???
>>
>
>
>I'd like to start another thread on this...
>Is there *anyone* now alive and recording who plays
>Chopin decently?
>
>Most posters here seem to like Pollini but I find him loud
>and robotic. I do like Rubinstein, but he's long dead.
>I always liked the old Klein recording of the Preludes, but
>that was made almost 50 years ago.
>
>Has the playing of Chopin become a lost 19th c. art?
>
>- Alex
>
>
Jeff Harrison
(Trey Behan) wrote:
> George Bush dislikes broccoli, and I'm not too crazy about Rocky Road ice
> cream. Does this mean we deserve to be somehow criticized or reformed?
Maybe. Perhaps if you only gave broccoli ONE try as a young, naive child
and never gave it a second chance or if the broccoli you had on the first
go round was spoilt and you never tried it again, I'd have to question
your assessment. And if the Rocky Road you tasted was a budget version at
a local discount store's horrendous ice cream counter, I'd love to be the
one who gave you your first taste of Ben & Jerry's Rocky Road.* Now if you
hated the Ben & Jerry's, then I'd say you had likely formed a pretty
well-formed opinion.
I really dislike use of this analogy because it only works only if the
subject stating the opinion has had a proper orientation. Hey, I disliked
beer and shrimp upon first tasting them - they're now two of my favorite
foods.
With a proper orientation (like Ceil has with Chopin) it's pretty safe and
fair to one's self to make such informed opinions. It is hilarious to see
all the nasties come out from those who disagree with someone's INFORMED
opinion. "YOU MUST LIKE EVERYTHING I LIKE! OR ELSE!" C'mon!
Jeff Harrison
* yes, I realize that Ben & Jerry do not and have not produced a Rocky
Road Ice Cream.
Lawrence Faltz
> I've been trying to learn the Ballade in Gm off and on for twenty years or
> so, and sometimes I can blunder my way through it pretty well until I get to
> the closing Presto con fuoco - I just can't bring that up to speed. I
Play it the way I do: presto con molto retardo.
LLF
Lawrence Faltz
> JUST ABOUT all classical
> music written this century (and I'm aware the term classical may be
> controversial in itself) is... unmusical. I'll stop short of calling it
> junk.
Uh, EXCUSE ME. What an erroneous, cavalier, uninformed statement. How
about, for "musical" 20th century classical music:
All of Richard Strauss' operas
Vaughan Williams, Hanson, Bax, Honegger, Arnold symphonies
Hindemith's "Mathis Der Maler" symphony
Samuel Barber's String Quartet
Anything by Joachin Rodrigo
All the great Franz Lehar operettas
Puccini's Madame Butterfly, Fanciulla del West, Rondine, Turandot
Bernstein's "Candide"
Stravinsky's "Rake's Progress"
...and these are just a tiny sampling of mostly diatonic, tonal 20th
century music, even without picking Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Copland,
Bartok, etc.
I think you are equating "atonal" with "unmusical", and you should
expand your horizons to understand that this us not true. It takes
patience to understand and appreciate atonal music but once you do your
horizons are expanded forever, and you don't lose the appreciation of
tonal music.
Just because you can't figure out the musicality in atonal music doesn't
mean it's unmusical. Nor is everything written in the 20th century
atonal.
LLF
Walter Schmid
>
> Here I am - but you can't deny that the F minor is the greatest of the
> 4.
>
> I never understand why Chopin idolized Mozart whose music does the
> exactly same thing to me like what Chopin's does to Ceil.
>
you include Mozart's concertos to your dislike?
I think his concertos are much better than most of his sonatas.
But the Adagio in b-minor, KV 540 is wonderful!
Regards
Walter
Walter Schmid
>
> Certainly his style influenced others - the same as those before him influenced
> _his_ writing - especially Bach, Czerny, & Hummel. He did not invent
> everything - but he did add to, improvise, & twist many things -- which is
> basically what all composers have been doing for centuries.
>
> Would his music have lasted to present day if it had not been publically
> performed and popularized by the great showman Liszt?
LOL
now it's Liszt's turn! ;-)
You don't think in earnest we would have no Chopin tradition
without Liszt???
BTW we had no complete J.S.Bach tradition between 1750 and 1829!
Geniuses never disappear for ever!
Walter
dr...@aol.com
xyz...@aol.com (XyZortC) wrote:
> Certainly his style influenced others - the same as those before him
influenced
> _his_ writing - especially Bach, Czerny, & Hummel. He did not invent
> everything - but he did add to, improvise, & twist many things -- which is
> basically what all composers have been doing for centuries.
True. But some composers contribute more than others. I'm not saying that
Chopin created western music as we know it. I'm just saying that he added
more innovations to it, especially with regard to the piano repitore, than
most other composers did (notable exceptions being Mozart, Beethoven, and
Debussy). I mean, he practically invented a new style of playing the piano!
The Etudes for example, were a revolution at the time. Yea, I know Liszt
wrote his Transendental Etudes, but Chopins came first. In fact, Chopin
created the concert etude. You may not like them, but you have to give him
points for inventiveness, right?
>
> Would his music have lasted to present day if it had not been publically
> performed and popularized by the great showman Liszt?
I think so. I think Chopin's music is very accesable. And everyone likes a
catchy tune, right? I mean, why do you think Mozart's music is so
popular?...cause, he's the king of catchy melodies!
Besides, Liszt wasn't the only composer who admired Chopin. Mendelsson also
thought Chopin was a genius. And, if I recall correctly, it was Mendelsson
who ressurected Bach from oblivion. So, it seems he had an ear for "crowd
pleasing" music. (Just an aside)
-Dave
Chris Newman
John Brock wrote in message <702hjl$1...@panix.com>...
>If Mozart had gone back in time his style would have been completely
>unfamiliar, and so it's understandable that it might have been
>dismissed. I'm not convinced that it would have been though.
Well, yes I admit it's a pretty risky guess making the statement that Mozart
would have been dismissed in an earlier time, but I think the aesthetic of
Renaissance/Baroque Music was different to that of Classical - I don't think
Monteverdi would have appreciated an alberti bass hmmm well, I can only
speculate in my ignorance.
>Just
>because most "advanced" 20th century music would certainly have been
>dismissed in the 19th century, it does not automatically follow that
>19th century music would have been dismissed in the 18th century, and
>so on. It may be (and I know this is contentious) that there was much
>more continuity between the earlier styles than between those styles
>and 20th century music, so that Mozart's achievements could have been
>appreciated in earlier times. I know that to my own ears the jump from
>Mozart to Milton Babbitt sounds as extreme as the jump from Mozart to
>Chinese or Indian music, while the jump from, say, Frescobaldi to
>Mozart does not seem anywhere near as extreme.
Ockeghem to Mozart maybe?
>
>>There is also the requirement of originality - if you could write any
music
>>in the same style of and of the same quality as a great composer you would
>>still not make it into the composers hall of fame.
>
>Perhaps originality is a requirement for being a great composer
>(although, as I said previously, I have serious reservations about "the
>20th century Cult of Originality"), but there is a difference between
>saying that a piece of music was written by a great composer and saying
>that the music *itself* is great. I was asking whether the music in my
>hypothetical discovered manuscripts was great music, and it really does
>seem to me that if we can't answer that question without knowing who
>wrote the music then this in some way calls into question our whole
>concept of what "great music" is.
Yes, but the greatness of the music itself depends on when it was
written i.e. I guess you have to incorporate into your definition of "great
music" a clause about the period of time it originated in. We hear
historical music in the context of it's time and I believe
judge it accordingly. I can forgive Mozart an alberti bass because in it's
time it was fresh. In a 20th century composition it would be trite and
boring.
ChrisN
Chin
bachch...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<363fcd5b...@news.vol.net>...
>Anyone who likes Kissin?
>
>Andrew.
>
8-)
David Chin
Lawrence Faltz wrote in message <3624E4...@pol.net>...
>
>LLF
Or do like I do . Have a REEEEEEEEEAL loose, bouncy right wrist : however,
you'll sacrifice some fuoco to get that extra presto-It's a trade off. I
sweat when I play this and the 4th in F-Minor. Timing's tricky because of
the left hand but it can be done. Look at the WHOLE picture and don't
concentrate on one hand only.
Help needed:
2nd in F major-Presto con fuoco sections
Can anyone recommend any way other than slow practice for the right hand? :(
4th in F minor
Appreciate anyone's interpretation of the piece, particularly from bar 153
onwards
Walter Schmid
>
> >I really envy sometimes people who like bad music! ;-)
> >Regards
> >
> >Walter
>
> Now why would you envy those people? You already admitted to liking Chopin . .
> .
>
O, I didn't expect YOU to read postings under a subject with
"Chopin" in it ;-) - Are you a masochist?
Regards
Walter
Trey Behan
>I really dislike use of this analogy because it only works only if the
>subject stating the opinion has had a proper orientation.
For the record (and I can't--and won't--speak for George Bush), I have tasted
high-quality Rocky Road ice cream many times. It's OK, just not a fave. I am,
in this case at least, properly oriented.
>Hey, I disliked
>beer and shrimp upon first tasting them - they're now two of my favorite
>foods.
Loved both on first encounter. Hope this restores my analogy. Now write George
:)
Trey
l...@epix.net
"Chin" <chi...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>
> bachch...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <363fcd5b...@news.vol.net>...
> >Anyone who likes Kissin?
> >
He's got unbelievable chops, like about a thousand
other current virtuosi in his age group.
He seems to play with "feeling," the same way Yo-
Yo Ma plays with the Bach cello suites and partitas
with so much "feeling."
But with such impeccabl e virtuosity, and endless
study and refinement of performance technique, I
think that even "feeling" has become a technique,
just like trills, double chromatic scales in thirds,
etc. . .
I'll think that a lot of really good young musicians
today, especially the violinists I've seen and heard,
have gradually redefined what we think of as
musical "emotion."
All the near-swooning and the facial histrionics
indicate that they they're playing with a high degree
of empathy and feeling, with the weight of the
whole human condition on their sholders as they
progress into the minor development of a big show
piece.
The truth of the matter is that they are merely over-
stimulated by the sheer exubrence of their own
technique to the point where they're actually getting
emotional about what great technicians they are. . .
Classical musicians have become -too- good at
performing. The music they play has long been
embalmed by virtuosity, and that's why they have
to -give- away tickets to fill Lincoln Center today.
Who wants to repeatedly pay to attend a wake with
an open casket?
If they were playing their own compositions, and
improvising on them according to their mood (the
way Mozart must have), AND playing with great
technique and feeling as well. . . now that would
be something I'd be happy to pay to see.
I listen to more and more jazz now, just to get
some relief from Asian violin prodigies and Slavic
piano virtuosi (as good as they undenibly are). . .
Sometimes it seems like there's more actual music
happening in a simple jazz improvisation on say, a
Gershwin standard, than in a whold Rach concerto
churned out by Kissin. . .
These are exclusively my own humble rantings and
ravings. . .
George Gilliland
bachch...@my-dejanews.com
concerto K488, which is about the only Mozart that I have any affinity
to. And perhaps if I have the chance to listen to the Requiem
properly, I'd like it.
Andrew.
XyZortC
>> Would his music have lasted to present day if it had not been publically
>> performed and popularized by the great showman Liszt?
then Walter asked:
>You don't think in earnest we would have no Chopin tradition
>without Liszt???
Walter --
I didn't say "we wouldn't have the Chopin tradition without Liszt." I ASKED
"would his music have lasted if Liszt hadn't performed it?"
I have no idea. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I was only
tossing out food for thought.
Ceil
l...@epix.net
"Alexander Pensky" <
Alex....@software.rockwell.com> wrote:
> I'd like to start another thread on this...
> Is there *anyone* now alive and recording who plays Chopin decently?
(snip)
> Has the playing of Chopin become a lost 19th c. art?
>
> - Alex
Alex,
Up till the 1980s Rubenstein "owned" Chopin, and
everyone else seemed either scared to be compared
to him, or maybe discouraged by the album
companies.
Unfortunately all the great Chopinists I can think of
are also dead, or near the end of their careers. But if
you haven't heard these yet, then its as if they were
new anyway:
Alfred Cortot (old Victrola reissues, but great!)
Rosina Lhevinne (ditto)
Josef Lhevinne (ditto--her husband)
Ignaz Paderewski (only "recordings" piano rolls
available)
Incidentally I once attended a "concert" in NY
where the only "performers" were a half-dozen
DuoArt piano rolls of some of these great people.
It was an eerie experience to see the big Steinway
on the stage as if played by a ghost (they even had
an empty artist's bench!).
The two rolls that really stood out in my mind were
one made by Josef Hoffman of a Schubert
Impromtu (Bb), and a breathtaking rendition of
Chopin Barcarolle by Cortot that literally left the
hair standing up on my nape. Man was that nice!
It's a real testament to how much nuance these old
roll players were able to record. In fact a roll which
featured Paderewski playing a Polonaise actually
recorded a flubbed passage by the master, which
also goes to show how our performance values
have changed over the years! It was beautiful
anyway.
There -are- two living pianists who to my ear
uphold the dying art of great Chopin playing:
Abby Simon (virtually retired now) recently
released a complete Chopin works. All played on a
Baldwin, BTW, so the texture is different from the
usual Steinway or Boesendorfer sound. He's great
in my opinion. A dynamic and expressive range to
rival Rubenstein, yet very masculine and sturdy,
and great technique and velocity too. . .
Also:
Murry Perahia, who isn't considered a Chopin
specialist, but plays him exquisitely, I think.
Sometimes his control of touch and shading really
borders on the sublime. Great natural rubato.
Maybe I can think of some others later. . .
G.G.
David Kaiser
disappearing, but the thread disappeared from my screen, hidden under NYC
free concert, and I only just rediscovered it.
First of all, to Ceil: the etudes, and other pieces too (like my beloved
c# scherzo) are filled with marvellous patterns that are both beautiful and,
when you get the knack of them, kind of amazingly natural to play. Check out
the last etude, for instance. No one else would have thought of a
finger-pattern like that and it's a wonderful effect.
Second, about Beethoven, yes, there is real grief in several late works.
I don't hear it in the Hammerklavier, although I like it, but I certainly do
in Opus 111 and above all in the B-flat quartet--the Cavatina is nearly as
sad as Barber's Adagio, which, come to think of it, may well have been
somewhat inspired by it.
And Ceil, I don't know if I can think of a piece everyone else likes
that I hate--a classical one, anyway. There aren't too many that I hate. .
.but one I'm not ashamed to love is the "I"m forever chasing rainbows"
impromptu--I don't care what anyone says. . .But believe me, I don't model my
tastes on other people.
Brahms wrote a number of very melodic pieces: the A violin sonata comes
to mind; there's lots of great melody in the first piano concerto, and in the
violin concerto. But no, perhaps melody isn't his strong point--I wouldn't
say it's Beethoven's strong point, either.
David Kaiser
Glenn Mandelkern
One set of compositions I've liked pursuing by Chopin are those
polonaises which are somewhat less available in recordings.
In several collections of Chopin Polonaises, I've noticed #5 (F#m) and
#7 (Ab, Polonaise/Fantaisie) missing. Also, the posthumous ones are
not always included. That made me even more curious.
I've especially loved the F#m one. I find F#m a very passionate key,
and really like Chopin's use of octaves in this one. A version by
Garrick Ohlsson really inspires me. Also, I'm very fond of the middle
section that transitions from the relative major of A to another
set of measures based on F7. This polonaise to me is very powerful.
Something that helps me play better is to write the chord symbols.
I love to write out the chord symbols for Chopin's music, e.g.,
the Op.28, No.4 prelude in Em.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Mandelkern "Hee, hee, hee, hee!" -- Questor the Elf
gma...@netcom.com
San Jose, CA
Games, GUI's and Entertainment
1997 Computer Games Developers Conference Seminar Host: "OO is so good!"
Career Magazine Author, www.careermag.com: The Candidate is a Human Being