|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.188.250.219
The last time I saw Yuja Wang in concert, she played the Art Tatum arrangement of "Tea for Two" as an encore. Now I just noticed that the Medici TV site has a Verbier recital from last month by "The Siberian Bear" (aka Dennis Matsuev - the 1998 Tchaikovsky Competition winner), where the last of his five encores is an improvisation (his own?) of Duke Ellington's "Take the 'A' Train". (This is preceded by an unbelievable rendition of Ginzburg's Fantasy on Figaro's aria from Rossini's "Barber of Seville".) Anyway, I'm wondering if these two concerts (and possibly others I'm not aware of), with their jazz encores, might be heralding a trend?
Follow Ups:
I've seen things like this before.
Heck, at organ recitals, encores can get pretty crazy. At one concert the organist asked the audience for popular tunes for him to do an improv theme and variation on.
But I was more interested in the "jazz encore as part of a classical recital" aspect. It just seems kind of interesting if this type of "performance practice" would take off.
Ignoring the silly rhythm, which I know is hard to ignore, but judged as music alone--not as jazz--it sounds like a junior high recital by a star pupil, a pampered star pupil. It seems condescending, but even if it's not, it trivializes the music.
When I hear these kinds of things, all I think is...why?It's practically tradition with brass quintets, and I find it every bit as annoying.
Edits: 08/26/12
Yuja's playing is really pretty awful, don't you think?
The Siberian Bear gets in more notes per second than either of them!
I don't.
By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKb0Sc2lYVU
I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that.
You do realize that you are comparing two entirely different arrangements do you not? And seriously, you take issue with Yuja Wang's rhythm?
So I guess this Art Tatum version also sucks since it suffers from similar "rhythmic issues?"
Never hurts to do your homework before stepping into it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxadblDT6zI
I'm familiar with Tatum's other versions of "Tea for Two." The one for which I posted the URL is just the one that happened to come up when I did a Google search for Chris.
Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong, and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated. My initial reaction was that she thinks she's playing some kind of waltz. After that, that she misses the subtleties of Tatum's rhythmic inflections. What you apparently hear as "rhythmic issues" are Tatum's characteristic syncopations. A lesser pianist can't hope to imitate those, or Tatum's technique.
You can't judge these interpretations, either Wang's or Tatum's, with a classical ear. They aren't classical works. Perhaps the best way to describe her performance is to say she speakers jazz as a second language. Her performance is classically accented, a phonemic approximation in the manner of a non-native speaker, and it doesn't work.
"I'm familiar with Tatum's other versions of "Tea for Two." The one for which I posted the URL is just the one that happened to come up when I did a Google search for Chris."
Sorry but this is sounding like back peddling to me. if you were familiar with the different arrangements why on earth would not check to make sure you were posting a link to the relevant arrangement?
"Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong,"
No they are not "wrong." They are quite right and on a technical level they have a distinct edge over Art Tatum's own rhythms which are still quite tight by any normal measure. technically speaking you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone with better rhythm than Yuja Wang. And once again it would appear that rhythm is being confused with tempo. And in the world of jazz it is just plain ignorant to make claims about tempos being "right" or "wrong." You will find much wider variances in tempos chosen for jazz standards that are all highly critically acclaimed than the difference between these two interpretations.
"and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated."
That is utter nonsense.Dare I say the sophistication of Yuja wang's phrasings is clearly lost on you. It's one thing to not like her choices but to call them unsophisticated or non existent kills your own credibility.
"My initial reaction was that she thinks she's playing some kind of waltz."
Then you kill your own credibility and dance on it's grave. If slowing down the tempo a bit on this arrangement of Tea for Two has you confusing the piece for a waltz there is nothing more to talk about.
"After that, that she misses the subtleties of Tatum's rhythmic inflections.'
No she doesn't miss them. She brings her own inflections into the performance. that makes it her own interpretation. were you really expecting her to do a carbon copy? Now that would be as un-jazz like a choice as could possibly be made. And apparently you don't seem to be hearing the unique inflections of rhythm that Yuja Wang injects into the piece. It's really hard to accept your comment on the lack of sophistication in those choices when it appears you don't even recognize them as existing at all.
"What you apparently hear as "rhythmic issues" are Tatum's characteristic syncopations."
Nope. Not even close. In actuality Art Tatum's rhythms are very tight. but if you insist on comparing them to Yuja Wang's they fall short. But I am not comparing rhythmic aberrations with artistic choices in phrasings.
"A lesser pianist can't hope to imitate those, or Tatum's technique."
Only a lessor artist would even want to. It would have been a waste of time for Yuja Wang to have attempted to imitate Tatum's interpretation. In what world do real artists attempt to imitate other artists' interpretations? Of course Yuja Wang didn't imitate Art Tatum's interpretation. That isn't what real artists do.
"You can't judge these interpretations, either Wang's or Tatum's, with a classical ear. They aren't classical works. Perhaps the best way to describe her performance is to say she speakers jazz as a second language. Her performance is classically accented, a phonemic approximation in the manner of a non-native speaker,"
Now you are starting to get somewhere. Yes she does bring some classical sensibilities to the piece along with her distinctive touch. But it is jazz. many artists have brought outside influences to jazz in their interpretations. That is the nature of jazz. It is not wrong on a technical level nor on an artistic level to bring one's own musical sensibilities to their interpretation of a jazz standard. Is Latin jazz invalid because of the Latin influences? Is Stan Getz a hack for bringing Bossa Nova stylings into his interpretations?
"and it doesn't work"
For you. It doesn't work for you. And you are placing some really odd limitations on the scope and nature of interpretations for that particular arrangement of a jazz standard. Limitations that now appear to be narrowed down to either being an exact imitation or being wrong.
Scott, you're an aggressive arguer who has now smeared me twice. That will not recur, or rather, if it does, you will have to find someone else with which to continue this discussion.
As it happens, I posted that URL because, as I said, it was the first one I am across and I was far too lazy to go looking for different arrangements on You Tube. It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique.
I disagree about rhythmic aberrations. Tatum did sometimes play slightly out of control on fast passages, when, I think, he was drunker than usual. But he here displays a firmer command of rhythm than Wang. I hear little that isn't stylistic and intentional.
You are right of course that a serious artist wouldn't attempt to duplicate another performer's interpretation. What Wang does here that I object to is attempt to imitate some of Tatum's sophisticated syncopations and off rhythms. What she does isn't as sophisticated and to my ears it falls short. This is not something I think that most pianists could do, no matter how proficient their technique. It requires musical genius.
I never suggested that all valid interpretations had to be identical, that's a ridiculous notion. As to genre crossing as it applies to style, I find that it doesn't often work. For example, if you look at the Bud on Bach thread, you'll see that I found his Bach playing no better (worse actually) than Wang's Tatum playing. This has nothing to do with the genre crossing in and of itself: I find Tatum's take on Massenet delightful.
This is of course my opinion on the matter. But opinion doesn't imply the absence of objective reality. It merely reflects the fact that our personal judgments are imperfect. I take it as a given that when someone judges a performance that they are expressing their own opinion, and also that they may be right or wrong. When was the last time you read "in my opinion" in a movie review? That isn't how we express ourselves. We say "that movie was great" or "that movie sucked," not "I thought that movie was great (or sucked)." In this case, however, I feel quite confident in my opinion. She just gets the spirit of the piece all wrong -- something that Tatum notably doesn't do with the classical portions of the Massenet, I'm left with the feeling that I'd be delighted to hear him play it straight.
"Scott, you're an aggressive arguer who has now smeared me twice. That will not recur, or rather, if it does, you will have to find someone else with which to continue this discussion."
Sorry but I am not really impressed by your outrage. If you want to post stupid things in a public forum you should have a strong enough constitution to stand being called on it.
"As it happens, I posted that URL because, as I said, it was the first one I am across and I was far too lazy to go looking for different arrangements on You Tube."
And so your story just gets more and more ridiculous. You claim familiarity with the different arrangements and you made the effort to find the link and post it. And now you are saying you were eager enough to argue the point with Chris but too lazy to type in the date of the actual arrangement. I'm not buying what you are sellin here.
"It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique."
Really? You thought that using a completely wrong example was going to prove your point? Dude you tried to argue that Yuja Wang's interpreation of a specific arrangement of Tea for Two was "wrong" and you pulled out a completely different arrangement to make the case. You should have walked away from this argument a long time ago. Oh and by the way, you used it to prove your silly assertion that Yuja Wang's interpretation was "rhythmically wrong." Truly ironic given the fact that Art Tatum's performance of the *right* arrangement is far more similar in tempo and phrasing to Yuja Wang's interpretation of that arrangement than it is to the different arrangement that you cited as evidence of Yuja Wang's alleged "rhythmic failings" And to this point you continue to mistake rhythm for tempo and phrasing.
"I disagree about rhythmic aberrations. Tatum did sometimes play slightly out of control on fast passages, when, I think, he was drunker than usual. But he here displays a firmer command of rhythm than Wang. I hear little that isn't stylistic and intentional."
You are free to disagree. Just know that you are wrong. It's easy enough to verify on a scope if you really want to do it. And I am not saying Art Tatum is any less of an artist for it. But the fact is as good as he is rhythmically he is not as good as Yuja Wang. This is not a subjective matter either. rhythm is objectively measurable. And please don't misunderstand this. I am aware that bending tempos and the use of phrasing is a part of the musical expression of any given performance. But those are gross variations that are obvious choices. I am specifically talking about rhythm.
You are right of course that a serious artist wouldn't attempt to duplicate another performer's interpretation. What Wang does here that I object to is attempt to imitate some of Tatum's sophisticated syncopations and off rhythms. What she does isn't as sophisticated and to my ears it falls short. This is not something I think that most pianists could do, no matter how proficient their technique. It requires musical genius.
Sorry but you really don't know what Yuja Wang's intentions are here. So to base an evaluation of her success in doing something that you don't know she is actually trying to do becomes a fatally flawed assertion. I agree that to "your ears" it falls short. Beyond that you fail to make a case.
"I never suggested that all valid interpretations had to be identical, that's a ridiculous notion. As to genre crossing as it applies to style, I find that it doesn't often work. For example, if you look at the Bud on Bach thread, you'll see that I found his Bach playing no better (worse actually) than Wang's Tatum playing. This has nothing to do with the genre crossing in and of itself: I find Tatum's take on Massenet delightful."
All of which is fine. These are opinions you are entitled to. But your assertions of objectively right or "wrong rhythms" went beyond that and were basically just plain wrong. No one is saying you have to like Yuja Wang's interpretations but when you go beyond that and make the objective claims you made you are stepping in it.
"This is of course my opinion on the matter. But opinion doesn't imply the absence of objective reality. It merely reflects the fact that our personal judgments are imperfect. I take it as a given that when someone judges a performance that they are expressing their own opinion, and also that they may be right or wrong. When was the last time you read "in my opinion" in a movie review? That isn't how we express ourselves. We say "that movie was great" or "that movie sucked," not "I thought that movie was great (or sucked)."
You might want to go back and reread your assertions. They went into objective assertions that were objectively incorrect. I don't care if you don't like something and it is easy enough to tell the difference. But that isn't what you did.
"In this case, however, I feel quite confident in my opinion. She just gets the spirit of the piece all wrong -- something that Tatum notably doesn't do with the classical portions of the Massenet, I'm left with the feeling that I'd be delighted to hear him play it straight."
I am confident that when your assertions go beyond opinion they fail to hold up to any sort of scrutiny. That is why I suggested and continue to suggest that you stop at that point and not try to argue your opinions as some sort of objective fact or make ridiculous claims like Yuja Wang's interpretation is "rhythmically wrong" or that she lacks any understanding of jazz. Or that her phrasing is in some way lacking in sophistication.
You don't like it. Best to quit there.
"Sorry but I am not really impressed by your outrage. If you want to post stupid things in a public forum you should have a strong enough constitution to stand being called on it."
No doubt there are those who wish to join you in the gutter. I do not. Goodbye, Scott, and best wishes for a long and prosperous life.
"No doubt there are those who wish to join you in the gutter. I do not."
I tend to think of this place as an audio forum where people freely exchange ideas about music and audio. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes people make assertions that are untrue and indefensible. Sometimes they get called on it. If you think of this forum as a gutter it's on you to figure out why you choose to engage people here in conversation.
"Goodbye, Scott, and best wishes for a long and prosperous life."
Thank you Josh and I wish the same for you. really.
.
Scott, I shouldn't really answer, but -- how would you feel if someone
a) claimed that you weren't familiar with the work you were discussing
b) claimed after you explained that you were that that you were, in effect, lying
c) claimed that you were posting "stupid things"?
When you make inaccurate accusations about people, they are rapidly going to lose respect for your argument. At least, I will. If you're that wrong about me, why would I expect you to be right about something else?
When you add an insult into the mix, well . . .
That's why I ended the discussion, as I do these days whenever someone insists on arguing ad hominem rather than sticking to the issue at hand. Not because we have differing opinions.
And, really, this doesn't happen to me often on the Asylum, despite the hundreds of posts I've made. I can think of one exception on the General Asylum -- I ended that discussion too -- and otherwise, it's always the same guy, and he does it to others as well.
"Scott, I shouldn't really answer, but -- how would you feel if someone
a) claimed that you weren't familiar with the work you were discussing
b) claimed after you explained that you were that that you were, in effect, lying"
If I were making the argument that Yuja Wang was "rhythmically wrong" in her interpretation of that particular arrangement of Tea for Two by Art Tatum from 1933 and I knew that he had recorded several very different arrangements as would anybody who is that familiar with Art Tatum and that particular standard and I decided to go to the trouble of finding it on youtube and posting it in support of that argument.... I would never ever ever post the wrong arrangement. and if I did and I were called on it I would have walked away feeling pretty dumb about the whole thing. That is what you did. And you even went on to argue that despite being a completely different arrangement that it still supported your argument. That really killed your argument more than anything. Again you might want to go back and look at that post....You didn't just post the link you commented on it's content
"I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that."
"That" being what? Were you going from memory of the 1933 recording or were you commenting on the content of the youtube video that you had just posted? Then you come back with this
"It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique."
Certainly it would not be unreasonable to deduct that if "it seemed sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique" that you must have given it a listen first. No? How else could you make such a claim? So you must have known that it was a completely different arrangement that bears little resemblance to the relavent performance since you are familiar with Art Tatum's other arrangements and his performances of them (by the way the only other arrangement of this one on youtube is the right one so there wouldn't have been much of a search)As someone so familiar with the various Art Tatum versions of Tea for Two you had to know that this was so different and you had to also know that the correct arrangement, while somewhat different was at least basically the same piece with tempos and phrasing that was not nearly as dissimilar as the two different Art Tatum arrangements. So regardless of why you chose to post the wrong arrangement matters not. You did make that choice and it completely killed your argument.
You got called on it.
"c) claimed that you were posting "stupid things"?"
If I did the above and someone called it stupid I would have to agree with them. Smart people do and say stupid things from time to time. I know it's no fun to be called on it but that is the school of hard knocks.
"When you make inaccurate accusations about people, they are rapidly going to lose respect for your argument. At least, I will. If you're that wrong about me, why would I expect you to be right about something else?
When you add an insult into the mix, well . . ."
Sorry you feel insulted. But if you go back and read the posts you will see that I merely called you on posting the wrong version of Art Tatum's Tea for Two and then called you on trying to assert that it still proved your point. I really don't care what your rationalizations are for posting the wrong arrangement. The point was that it was lame beyond belief to make the argument you made and then post the wrong arrangement and then hang on to it by claiming it still supported your argument.
"That's why I ended the discussion,"
But alas, you didn't end it and you are still not ending it.
"as I do these days whenever someone insists on arguing ad hominem rather than sticking to the issue at hand. Not because we have differing opinions."
That is ironic since you are the one making ad hominem arguments here. I have argued about the music and I have deconstructed your arguments about the music which include citing the wrong arrangement as evidence for your objective assertions about "wrong rhythms." If we were arguing... I don't know...say college football and I was saying that..Alabama is great and USC was an objectively inferior team and I posted a youtube video of Alabama playing basketball as evidence wouldn't that raise a red flag? Especially if I said well yeah, it's basketball but it still proves that USC is an inferior football team. Wouldn't that come off as a bit, dare I say it?.... stupid?
"And, really, this doesn't happen to me often on the Asylum, despite the hundreds of posts I've made. I can think of one exception on the General Asylum -- I ended that discussion too -- and otherwise, it's always the same guy, and he does it to others as well."
Whether or not you want to continue the discussion or end it is fine with me either way.
I did end it. You'll find no discussion here of the relative merits of the performance in question. I am merely attempting to explain to you why I did so.
So, you think I should have taken the time to find the right version. No doubt you're right. I thought so at the time. I also thought that I was tired and had a million other things to do, and I didn't feel particularly inclined to search for it on You Tube, and that, as I said, the version that came up in Google would make my point. You may disagree. That is your right. However, you made a number of inaccurate statements about me, and then called me stupid. That last is, I believe, what they call an insult, but you'll have to forgive little old stupid me if I got that wrong.
""That" being what? Were you going from memory of the 1933 recording or were you commenting on the content of the youtube video that you had just posted."
If you look in Stereophile c. 2008, you'll find a letter from me in which I critique the anomalies in the otherwise laudable Zenph Tatum and Gould releases. The first track on the Tatum is, you guessed it, the 1933 "Tea For Two."
You are so off base here it is incredible.
"I did end it."
And here you are still talking about it. An odd way of ending it.
"So, you think I should have taken the time to find the right version. No doubt you're right. I thought so at the time. I also thought that I was tired and had a million other things to do, and I didn't feel particularly inclined to search for it on You Tube, and that, as I said, the version that came up in Google would make my point."
OK here's the thing. This is the google search for Art Tatum Tea for two. That's what ya did right? A google search.. Take a good look.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Art%20tatum%20tea&cp=21&gs_id=1r&xhr=t&q=Art%20tatum%20tea%20for%20two&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Art+tatum+tea+for+two&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=39ecb6b45886a9c8&biw=914&bih=362
Right below the first youtube link, RIGHT below it is the correct arrangement that is labeled 1933. So you may have been tired, you may have had a million things to do yadda yadda yadda but you didn't *have* to search for anything more than what you already searched for. It was right there.
"You may disagree. That is your right. However, you made a number of inaccurate statements about me, and then called me stupid."
I do find this really ironic. Nowhere did I call *you* stupid. I inferred that some of the content of your posts were stupid. I also went on to say that even smart people will say stupid things from time to time. I have made every effort to discuss the subject not you personally. It is not my fault if you don't see the difference.
"That last is, I believe, what they call an insult, but you'll have to forgive little old stupid me if I got that wrong."
You are forgiven. You did get it wrong.
> > "That" being what? Were you going from memory of the 1933 recording or were you commenting on the content of the youtube video that you had just posted."> >
"If you look in Stereophile c. 2008, you'll find a letter from me in which I critique the anomalies in the otherwise laudable Zenph Tatum and Gould releases. The first track on the Tatum is, you guessed it, the 1933 'Tea For Two.'"
So let me get this straight. Despite being exhausted and with a million things to do you took the trouble to do a google search to find a youtube link to Art Tatum performing Tea for Two. In the google search right below the first link is a second link labelled Art Tatum Tea for Two 1933. You chose to link the first one, the wrong one. Then you chose to comment on "That" but "That" meant the version that you wrote to Stereophile about in 2008. And you did this fully knowing that there were different arrangements by Art Tatum of Tea for Two. That is where the your version of what went down stands? Are there any inaccuracies here? Am I leaving any facts out? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your take on this whole thing
"You are so off base here it is incredible"
Please feel free to correct any errors in fact that I have made here.
and you haven't even touched on the bigger point. that you justified posting the wrong arrangement by saying it still showed that the Yuja Wang performance was "rhythmically wrong"
"Right below the first youtube link, RIGHT below it is the correct arrangement that is labeled 1933. So you may have been tired, you may have had a million things to do yadda yadda yadda but you didn't *have* to search for anything more than what you already searched for. It was right there."
Yes. I didn't. I clicked on the first result, it seemed good enough, I went with it.
"I have over 100 unanswered emails alone. I have limited time to spend on this crap."It is not my fault if you don't see the difference."
You are working way too hard to justify yourself.
Try *not* calling people -- or what they do -- stupid, and observe the results. You'll find I think that they become noticeably more friendly.
Debate the issue, not the man. It's a simple rule and, I find, a fairly effective one (though not completely so, since some people will become irate if you merely disagree with them).
"I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your take on this whole thing "
As I said, I didn't take the time to look for the 1933 version. I was familiar with the 1933 version -- as it happened, so familiar with Tatum that I was able to identify anomalies in the Zenph recreation, which led to a letter in Stereophile -- about a disk which has as its first track the 1933 version.
"And you haven't even touched on the bigger point. that you justified posting the wrong arrangement by saying it still showed that the Yuja Wang performance was 'rhythmically wrong'."
Actually, what I did was respond to Chris's assertion that "BTW, the "silly rhythm" came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing."
Here's my post, in response to that:
"I couldn't listen all the way through
"By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it:
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKb0Sc2lYVU
"I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that."
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/19/195558.html
Should I have been clearer, or more dilligent? Sure. Do I have the time? No. It's already 10 o'clock and I've been at the computer since 6:30, accomplishing absolutely nothing of what I have to in life. I don't have the time to dot every "i" and cross every "t."
Scott, you were absolutely right to point out that it was the wrong version. My point is just that there are ways of doing that that don't involve a personal attack, or theorizing about what the other person did, or expressing doubt when an explanation is given.
It just so happens that by a fortuitous semi-coincidence, I have published evidence that I'm intimately familiar with the 1933 version, but such evidence doesn't usually come along and in my experience then accusations can lead to a flame war or at least distract from the actual debate. Unless the other person just overlooks them. I've noticed that many do do that successfully, but I'm not very good at it.
"Try *not* calling people -- or what they do -- stupid, and observe the results. You'll find I think that they become noticeably more friendly.'
you had expressed your outrage way before the word "stupid" came into it. I'm just not one to walk on egg shells in these kinds of discussions because someone chooses to become indignant about things.
"Debate the issue, not the man. It's a simple rule and, I find, a fairly effective one (though not completely so, since some people will become irate if you merely disagree with them)."
That is what I did up until the point that you got bent out of shape.
"You had expressed your outrage way before the word "stupid" came into it. I'm just not one to walk on egg shells in these kinds of discussions because someone chooses to become indignant about things."
Frankly, that's a very self-serving way of looking at it. Civil debate is easy enough to master, and, more importantly, argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy that detracts from meaningful argument and is best left to the cesspools of politics and divorce court. I'd think the reason for that would be self-apparent: whether someone is a liar or a fool or an axe murderer has no bearing whatsoever on whether their argument is correct.
It is perfectly fair and right to point out that a performance presented as evidence is of a different version, and to question its validity. It serves no purpose whatsoever to start making speculative accusations about the person who posted it.
"Frankly, that's a very self-serving way of looking at it."
Frankly I think your perspective is every bit as self serving as you think mine is.
"Civil debate is easy enough to master, and, more importantly, argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy that detracts from meaningful argument and is best left to the cesspools of politics and divorce court."
Argument from authority is also a logical fallacy and it is fair game to challenge one's "authority" when one chooses to argue from such a position.
"I'd think the reason for that would be self-apparent: whether someone is a liar or a fool or an axe murderer has no bearing whatsoever on whether their argument is correct."
If one is offering alleged expert testimony their expertise is fair game. You did argue from authority when pressed on your assertions that were objective in nature.
"It is perfectly fair and right to point out that a performance presented as evidence is of a different version, and to question its validity. It serves no purpose whatsoever to start making speculative accusations about the person who posted it."
What speculation are you referring to? I pointed out that you posted the wrong arrangement and you continued to cite that arrangement as a legitimate piece of evidence to support your arguments. I have offered no "speculation" as to why you somehow picked the wrong arrangement when the correct one was right there. I don't know why this is eating at you so much. It was lame regardless of why you did it and even you have conceded that point. So why are you stuck on it? I'm not. In my opinion you shot your own argument down when you insisted that the incorrect example still demonstrated the wrongness of Yuja Wang's "rhythms." And for the record that is me staying on subject and you trying to keep the subject about you.
"Argument from authority is also a logical fallacy and it is fair game to challenge one's 'authority' when one chooses to argue from such a position."
That's a non-sequitur.
"If one is offering alleged expert testimony their expertise is fair game."
I made no claims to expertise. It would, as you point out, have been a logical fallacy to do so, as in "I am a musicologist trained at the Sorbonne, therefore you are an eegnorant peeg and your opinions mean nothing." (I should add that I am not.) An argument must stand on its own merits.
Here's an example that may hit closer to home. After you'd attacked him, another poster said that you don't understand jazz (I don't remember the exact words at this point, but they were to that effect). What did this comment contribute to the debate? It has no significance whatsoever to the question of whether you're right or not. You may not have cared, but *it adds nothing to the discussion.*
In my case, you did attempt to provide evidence that I lacked the expertise to comment, but it was completely off track; you interpreted a bit of laziness as lack of knowledge. This I find is another danger of personal attacks. They are much easier to make than to refute, and they are typically so speculative as to be useless. For this reason, I find that they are one of the most frequent tools of conformation bias. As in, "That guy only risked his life by running in front of the car to rescue a child because he wanted to get into the newspapers." I've noticed that much political argument occurs along these lines -- imputation of motive, baseless speculation. As in Obama is a Muslim, or Bush invaded Iraq to get the oil, to use examples from both the right and the left.
"I have offered no "speculation" as to why you somehow picked the wrong arrangement when the correct one was right there. I don't know why this is eating at you so much. It was lame regardless of why you did it and even you have conceded that point. So why are you stuck on it? I'm not. In my opinion you shot your own argument down when you insisted that the incorrect example still demonstrated the wrongness of Yuja Wang's "rhythms." And for the record that is me staying on subject and you trying to keep the subject about you."
No speculations? Try "Sorry but this is sounding like back peddling to me. if you were familiar with the different arrangements why on earth would not check to make sure you were posting a link to the relevant arrangement?" Or "Never hurts to do your homework before stepping into it"?
Otherwise, you continue to engage in speculation. Chris said,
"BTW, the "silly rhythm" came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing [nt]"
I said, in reply,
I couldn't listen all the way through
By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKb0Sc2lYVU
I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/19/195558.html
You then reintroduce the subject of rhythms:
"You do realize that you are comparing two entirely different arrangements do you not? And seriously, you take issue with Yuja Wang's rhythm? So I guess this Art Tatum version also sucks since it suffers from similar "rhythmic issues"?'
I replied to point out that no, Tatum's version did not.
Throughout this, you have misjudged what I was saying and doing, generally because you weren't cautious enough in making inferences -- and when I explained, in effect, accused me of lying or being stupid. (It never occurred to me, and it still does not, that the intelligent listener could not infer from another Tatum version of Tea for Two that Tatum plays jazz with a mastery that Wang does not possess.)
Josh, I am geniunely sorry for any hurt feelings here. I am sure you are a good guy. But it does appear you want to continue this discussion and so I will address your points. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible.> > > Argument from authority is also a logical fallacy and it is fair game to challenge one's 'authority' when one chooses to argue from such a position.> > >
> > That's a non-sequitur.> >
It is not a nonsequitur at all. It is what you did in my view.
> > > If one is offering alleged expert testimony their expertise is fair game.> > >
> > I made no claims to expertise.> >
Here are some of the things you said...
"I think that you have to have some familiarity with a genre to sense when the style is right or not, and fully judge the skill of a performer. I find it's just like audio in that respect: the more you listen, the more you hear."
"Listen to his recordings and you'll get a sense of why this is so, just as with familiarity with classical performances we start to appreciate the respective merits of various classical pianists."
"What I suspect you're missing is the experience of hearing more of Tatum's playing and coming to appreciate just how remarkable it is. "If it ain't got that swing . . ."
These are things you have said in this thread. IMO they clearly are inferences that you have a certain level of experience and that it gave you a degree of expertise that allowed you to make assertions of fact about the alleged "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's rhythms. I think there is a pretty clear inference that you were of the opinion that Chris and I lacked that experience and the expertise that comes with it.
> > It would, as you point out, have been a logical fallacy to do so, as in "I am a musicologist trained at the Sorbonne, therefore you are an eegnorant peeg and your opinions mean nothing." (I should add that I am not.) An argument must stand on its own merits.> >
I think the above quotes support my position that you were arguing from authority.
> > Here's an example that may hit closer to home. After you'd attacked him, another poster said that you don't understand jazz (I don't remember the exact words at this point, but they were to that effect). What did this comment contribute to the debate? It has no significance whatsoever to the question of whether you're right or not. You may not have cared, but *it adds nothing to the discussion.*> >Indeed that was Paul who you seemed side with on the issue of my knowlegde of jazz. I hope you noiticed that I did not become outraged by his personal attack on my knowledge. He was also arguing from authority but he was worse. I hope you noticed my post in response to his suggestion that Yuja Wang should have run her interpreation by an actual jazz musician before letting it out into the public. You might find that take on her performance a bit surprising.
> > In my case, you did attempt to provide evidence that I lacked the expertise to comment,> >
No. I think I did provide evidence that your choice to make objective assertions about Yuja Wang's performace and about the rules of jazz were underminded by your own attempts to support those assertions. Not the same thing. Not personal either.
> > but it was completely off track; you interpreted a bit of laziness as lack of knowledge. This I find is another danger of personal attacks.> >Well you do run into trouble when you presume to know what I was "thinking." I interpreted your choice to use the wrong arrangement as evidence for your assertions of fact about the wrongness of Yuja Wang's rhythms and your choice to assert that despite being the wrong arrangement that it still proved your point as evidence that your argument was quite self defeating.
> > They are much easier to make than to refute, and they are typically so speculative as to be useless. For this reason, I find that they are one of the most frequent tools of conformation bias.> >
But I made no such speculation. And quite honestly you might want to look at what you are doing here. You are speculating on what I was thinking. that is on you. I never speculated on why you chose to use the wrong arrangement as your evidence. I merely pointed out how it underminded your arguments.
> > As in, "That guy only risked his life by running in front of the car to rescue a child because he wanted to get into the newspapers." I've noticed that much political argument occurs along these lines -- imputation of motive, baseless speculation. As in Obama is a Muslim, or Bush invaded Iraq to get the oil, to use examples from both the right and the left.> >I suggest you reread my posts. Show me where I actually did that.
> > > "I have offered no "speculation" as to why you somehow picked the wrong arrangement when the correct one was right there. I don't know why this is eating at you so much. It was lame regardless of why you did it and even you have conceded that point. So why are you stuck on it? I'm not. In my opinion you shot your own argument down when you insisted that the incorrect example still demonstrated the wrongness of Yuja Wang's "rhythms." And for the record that is me staying on subject and you trying to keep the subject about you."> > >
> > No speculations? Try "Sorry but this is sounding like back peddling to me. if you were familiar with the different arrangements why on earth would not check to make sure you were posting a link to the relevant arrangement?" Or "Never hurts to do your homework before stepping into it"?> >
And where in that do you find me making any claims as to *why* you chose the wrong arrangement? You stepped into it by what you did, by using the wrong arrangement as your evidence. I did not know *why* you did it nor did I care. You did do it. And you vouched for that choice. So IMO you do have to own it.
> > Otherwise, you continue to engage in speculation. Chris said,
"BTW, the "silly rhythm" came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing [nt]"
I said, in reply,
I couldn't listen all the way through
By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKb0Sc2lYVU
I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/19/195558.html
You then reintroduce the subject of rhythms:
"You do realize that you are comparing two entirely different arrangements do you not? And seriously, you take issue with Yuja Wang's rhythm? So I guess this Art Tatum version also sucks since it suffers from similar "rhythmic issues"?'
I replied to point out that no, Tatum's version did not.> >
yeah but you also said this about the wrong arrangement that you posted..And sorry but here is where you get into all kinds of trouble
"It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique."
So how did it seem to you to demonstrate tatum's overwhelming superiorty in jazz interpreation and technique in such a way that it demonstrated the objective "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's interpretation of *an entirely different piece of music*?
Do you not see the big problem here? You might want to chew on that one a while before answering. If you thought it demonstrated anything you had to have listened to it. Right? If you listened to it then you had to know it was the wrong arrangement and that you were comparing apples to oranges and that it did nothing to support your argument. Right?
And that was my point. Period. You killed your argument by posting the wrong arrangement and then *vouching* for that choice.
> > Throughout this, you have misjudged what I was saying and doing, generally because you weren't cautious enough in making inferences -- and when I explained, in effect, accused me of lying or being stupid.> >
Really? Do quote me where I accused you of lying. otherwise don't hold me responsible for things you beleive I am thinking. That is on you.> > (It never occurred to me, and it still does not, that the intelligent listener could not infer from another Tatum version of Tea for Two that Tatum plays jazz with a mastery that Wang does not possess.)> >
IMO it should have. The arrangement you cited was so different that it showed nothing. the fact is Yuja Wang's performance was similar enough to Art Tatums on the *right* arrangement that if the wrong arrangement were really evidence that Yuja Wang's rhythms were objectively wrong then so were Art Tatum's on the 1933 arrangement. That was why Chirs said Yuja changed nothing. That is because on first listen he found them to be so similar in content. And the other arrangement is so dissimilar that it could hardly work as evidence about any alleged "wrongness" of rhythms on any performance of the enterely differnt arrangement from 1933.
Edits: 08/25/12
"Josh, I am geniunely sorry for any hurt feelings here. I am sure you are a good guy. But it does appear you want to continue this discussion and so I will address your points. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible."
Thanks, Scott.
"Josh, I am geniunely sorry for any hurt feelings here. I am sure you are a good guy. But it does appear you want to continue this discussion and so I will address your points. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible."
Thanks, Scott.
In my experience, when there are as many quoted passages as there now are in this thread, it becomes impossible to remember context and the conversation grows increasingly confused. So rather than responding point by point, and without meaning to impugn the work you put into this, I'll try to keep my reply general.
I don't think anyone offers an opinion without believing that they have sufficient expertise to contribute something worthwhile. This is true whether we're genuine experts, or know nothing at all. But I didn't argue from authority. For one thing, I don't believe that I have any, besides enough famliarity with Tatum, the work in question, and the applicable musical styles to express a meaningful opinion. The comments about familiarity were, as I recall, made after you had made the remarks to which I objected, and weren't argument from authority, which would have been of the form "I am an authority, therefore this is true." Rather, they're a reflection of my own experience as I've become a better listener over the years. I think Paul A. expressed elegantly what he and I both experienced in the case of Tatum.
Agree that I made personal guesses about your experience and Chris's, as you did about mine. Again, that reflects my personal growth as a listener -- not hearing something, and then, with time and experience, hearing more and more. In your case, I believe I underestimated your familiarity with Tatum, for which I apologize.
"I hope you noiticed that I did not become outraged by his personal attack on my knowledge."
Yes, I did. I didn't mention his name because I didn't want to turn this into a food fight. But my point here is that such statements have no utility in debate. Paul merely insulted you because you had insulted him. The ad homines are a nullity as far as debate is concerned.
BTW, I was bothered when you attacked Paul personally, even if you weren't bothered when he attacked you back. This wasn't just about me.
"No. I think I did provide evidence that your choice to make objective assertions about Yuja Wang's performace and about the rules of jazz were underminded by your own attempts to support those assertions. Not the same thing. Not personal either."
That's where we disagree. You did make it personal, and aggressive. There are ways of raising these questions without doing that -- questions that are perfectly fair. But look at exactly what you said and how you said it, and keep in mind that when I explained myself, you in effect accused me of lying. Remember the point I made back when? When somebody starts making accusations about you, and being you, you know that the accusations are false, and then when you explain yourself they accuse you of lying too, you start to lose faith in their objectivity, and to wonder whether they aren't so aggressive that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion. The last time that happened to me I just dropped out of the conversation, because I didn't want to lose the other person as a friend. It still bothers me that I wasn't able to continue the conversation, because I was faced with a choice -- lose an online friend, or duck out of an argument when I believed my position was right.
"I never speculated on why you chose to use the wrong arrangement as your evidence. I merely pointed out how it underminded your arguments."
Oh, come on, Scott. Here's what you said:
"You do realize that you are comparing two entirely different arrangements do you not? And seriously, you take issue with Yuja Wang's rhythm? So I guess this Art Tatum version also sucks since it suffers from similar "rhythmic issues?"
"Never hurts to do your homework before stepping into it."
> I suggest you reread my posts. Show me where I actually [imputed motive, etc.]
How about the next one -- "Sorry but this is sounding like back peddling to me"?
That's the problem with these point-by-point discussions, at a certain point you forget what you said, I forget what I said. But I think you'll find the gist of the problem I had with what you said in the tone of your first three posts.
"And sorry but here is where you get into all kinds of trouble."
Correction: this is where you chose to make a federal case, instead of just asking, getting an anwer, and moving on. As I said, I thought the other version perfectly adequate to demonstrate Tatum's superior command of jazz style. I still do.
"If you thought it demonstrated anything you had to have listened to it. Right? If you listened to it then you had to know it was the wrong arrangement and that you were comparing apples to oranges and that it did nothing to support your argument."
I disagree. This is about style, and technical prowess. Tatum's style -- and jazz style -- and Tatum's technical prowess are amply displayed in both versions.
"IMO it should have. The arrangement you cited was so different that it showed nothing. the fact is Yuja Wang's performance was similar enough to Art Tatums on the *right* arrangement that if the wrong arrangement were really evidence that Yuja Wang's rhythms were objectively wrong then so were Art Tatum's on the 1933 arrangement. That was why Chirs said Yuja changed nothing. That is because on first listen he found them to be so similar in content. And the other arrangement is so dissimilar that it could hardly work as evidence about any alleged "wrongness" of rhythms on any performance of the enterely different arrangement from 1933."
You keep mentioning the rhythms. I made no reference to the rhythms when I posted that Youtube URL. Rather, it was Chris who had mentioned the rhythms: "BTW, the 'silly rhythm' came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing [nt]." I said "I couldn't listen [to Wang] all the way through. By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it. I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that."
You are right that these things get very drawn out and so I am done rehashing. And if you took my comment on back peddling to mean you were lying that was a misunderstanding. That was about the logic of your argument not the truthfulness about why you posted the wrong arrangement.
You did claim that Yuja Wang's rhythms were "wrong" and you claimed they were lacking in sophistication. With those claims I still take issue and I still think that using a completely wrong arrangement under-minds the argument. So on that we disagree.
Paul A. was more aggressive in his attacks on the merits of the performance. He compared the performance to that of a junior high school level musician. I beleive both of you questioned her familiarity with the jazz genre. Paul also suggested that Yuja should have run this by an actual jazz musician so as to be told how bad it was. Well....I happen to know a few jazz musicians and so I ran it by one.
I sent a link of Yuja Wang's performance to a Jazz musician I know in New Orleans. Sasha Masakowski. her dad and her teacher is Steve Masakowski.
A little background on Sasha and Steve
"Sasha’s musicality can be seen as a direct influence of her mother and father. Ulrike and Steve Masakowski are both virtuoso professional musicians. Ulrike, her mother, is a concert pianist and author of highly acclaimed piano-method series of books and publications, “Reeka Rules.” Steve Masakowski, world-renowned 7-string jazz guitarist, has done two albums under the Blue Note label and toured with the likes of Bobby McFerrin and Dianne Reeves, among others. Steve is currently the Coca-Cola endowed chair of the Jazz Studies department at the University of New Orleans and plays with one of New Orleans’ greatest modern jazz quartets, Astral Project.
Since beginning her career as a professional jazz musician in her early 20s, Sasha Masakowski has received vast acclaim from critics, fellow musicians, and general audiences alike throughout the U.S. and abroad. Her training from NOCCA as well as UNO's Jazz Studies Program have helped shape her cutting-edge, sophisticated style and the ease with which she presents herself on stage and captivates audiences worldwide."
http://www.sashamasakowski.com/html/about.php
Here is what Sasha said about Yuja's rendition of Tea for Two
"Wow!! Thats amazing- sounds beautiful! Art Tatum is one of my favorite pianists of all time, did you know he learned to play from transcribing player-roll pieces that were recorded by two people when he was a child? Thats why when you listen to him play solo piano it sounds like two people.
she did a wonderful job!"
I see no problem with you or Paul not liking it. That is a matter of taste. But when you guys go beyond that, which both of you do, you both make some claims that seem to run quite contrary to "expert" opinion. I see no mention of wrong rhythms or a lack of sophistication or any of the other objective claims of wrong playing on the part of Yuja Wang by Sasha. In fact she uses some pretty big superlatives don't you think? "wow" "amazing" "wonderful" "beautiful job." And Art Tatum is one of her favorite pianists of all time....
I think if you guys had left it at not liking it none of this would have gone on. I'm certainly not going to argue personal taste.
I'm afraid you've lost me on the rhythm thing. While the rhythmic anomalies were obvious and had been mentioned in previous posts, I didn't myself mention them at that point. I merely wanted Chris to have a chance to hear something of Tatum's artistry. I was convinced that, with exposure, that artistry would speak for itself.
But that's all beside the point, or at least my point, which is that when you argue too aggressively, you lose touch with the truth. You end up arguing like a lawyer and by the time you're done, the poor schnook in the divorce proceeding has been transformed into a child molester. Too many political discussions follow this path.
As to the jazz pianist, well, I suppose it's interesting on some level. But it has little significance to the argument, because it's an appeal to authority, which, as of course you know having brought that up, is a logical fallacy.
Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms. Could there be a more authoritative opinion on things musical than Tchaikovsky's? And yet, I feel quite confident in saying that Brahms was a great composer.
You don't have to be a chef to know whether a meal is good. Such judgments are made through talent, which is partly inborn, and exposure. Professional training isn't necessary. And the reason I think is that, after all, art (and cooking) appeal to the faculty of the listener, not the performer (or gourmet). Professional training teaches us to make a souffle, not to enjoy it.
> > I'm afraid you've lost me on the rhythm thing.> >
OK I will remind you of what you said on the subject.
"Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong, and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated."
> > While the rhythmic anomalies were obvious and had been mentioned in previous posts, I didn't myself mention them at that point.> >
See there you go again. "wrong rhythms" "rhythmic anomalies" that you are now claiming are "obvious." So obvious that two jazz musicians both of whom are fans of Art Tatum missed them? Maybe you could be more specific about the alleged "wrongness" of the rhythms and the alleged "rhythmic anomalies?" It would be quite interesting to see if you can point them out the the jazz musicians who seem to be utterly oblivious to the "obvious."
> > As to the jazz pianist, well, I suppose it's interesting on some level. But it has little significance to the argument, because it's an appeal to authority, which, as of course you know having brought that up, is a logical fallacy.> >
But before this was your position on such things.
"I think that you have to have some familiarity with a genre to sense when the style is right or not, and fully judge the skill of a performer."
So would you say that Sasha Mazakowski has "some familiarity with the genre?" Clearly she did not sense that the style was "wrong." If you are going to assert that your claims on these alleged "rhythmic anomalies" are valid based on your familiarity with the genre you can't claim logical fallacy when an opposing position is presented by someone who is clearly more familiar with that genre
> > Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms. Could there be a more authoritative opinion on things musical than Tchaikovsky's? And yet, I feel quite confident in saying that Brahms was a great composer.> >
Had Tchaikovsky made objective claims of Brahms music being objectively "wrong" then the analogy would work. It has been said numerous times by both Chris and myself that we take no issue with your subjective opinions on the piece.
It is your objective assertions of "rhythmic anomalies" and lack of "sophistication" that I find problematic. And the bottom line is your appeal to your experience "I think that you have to have some familiarity with a genre to sense when the style is right or not, and fully judge the skill of a performer." doesn't seem to hold up in this case as we have two musicians, one of which has a college degree in jazz did not detect any such "rhythmic anomalies."
> > You don't have to be a chef to know whether a meal is good. Such judgments are made through talent, which is partly inborn, and exposure.> >
So are you suggesting that your assertions of the "wrongness" of the rhythms or as you put it in your last post the "rhythmic anomalies" are supported by your "talent which is partly inborn and exposure." as opposed to Sasha Mazakowski's "talent, which is partly born, and exposure?" I think you lose the argument if that is the criteria.
> > Professional training isn't necessary. And the reason I think is that, after all, art (and cooking) appeal to the faculty of the listener, not the performer (or gourmet). Professional training teaches us to make a souffle, not to enjoy it.> >
Really? It seems you are saying there are chefs who are good at what they do and knowledgable about food but lack the ability to discern the quality food? If that is your position I think you are plainly wrong. One can not excel at anything without the ability to evaluate the success of their en devours and the en devours of others. There is no way a musician as well versed in jazz as Sasha Mazakowski is going to miss objectively "wrong rhythms" or "rhythmic anomalies." You may not like the tempo Yuja Wang chose and you may not like her choices in phrasing. But there is no way they are objectively wrong.
> OK I will remind you of what you said on the subject.
"Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong, and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated."
Scott, I know what I said. I'm just not sure why that has anything to do with the URL I provided, since I didn't make that post until later.
"If you are going to assert that your claims on these alleged 'rhythmic anomalies' are valid based on your familiarity with the genre you can't claim logical fallacy when an opposing position is presented by someone who is clearly more familiar with that genre."
You've made a logical error here, confounding "one must be familiar with a genre to make judgments" with "familiarity with a genre confers the ability to make judgments." Do you question the former? I certainly question the latter.
[Tchaikovsky] Tchaikovsky did make such objective assertions about Brahms, and about Bach as well. I disagree with them, just as I disagree with the judgment of these two jazz musicians.
"I think you lose the argument if that is the criteria."
I think it has no effect on the argument one way or the other. It is merely an observation about the nature of judgment, and why professionals don't necessarily have judgment that's superior to non-professionals.
You keep personifying this when neither ad hominems nor argument from authority -- which as I think about it are flip sides of the same thing -- have any validity.
"If that is your position I think you are plainly wrong. One can not excel at anything without the ability to evaluate the success of their en devours and the en devours of others. There is no way a musician as well versed in jazz as Sasha Mazakowski is going to miss objectively 'wrong rhythms' or 'rhythmic anomalies'."
If that were true, all professional musicians would have equal interpretive skills. I don't think you'll find many who say that they do. Furthermore, you persist in oversimplifying style, supposing that it is something that a musicologist could describe. Except in the most basic degree, we aren't able to do that.
What makes Schnabel's performance of the Hammerklavier so compelling? Certainly not technical virtuosity -- there are many pianists who have fleeter, more reliable, fingers. Can what makes his performance be described in entirely mechanistic terms? I don't think so. Not of course because there's no logic to it, but because we lack the analytical tools to do so. We can say so-and-so played with gusto, or rare understanding, or sensitivity, and critics regularly do. Or we can say he took the andante too fast, or that her intonation was off. But we can't put into words everything that makes a performance great. We can only hear it (or not), and respond to it.
> > > OK I will remind you of what you said on the subject.
"Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong, and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated."> > >
> > Scott, I know what I said. I'm just not sure why that has anything to do with the URL I provided, since I didn't make that post until later.> >
You claimed it supported your assertion of objective "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's rhythms.
> > > "If you are going to assert that your claims on these alleged 'rhythmic anomalies' are valid based on your familiarity with the genre you can't claim logical fallacy when an opposing position is presented by someone who is clearly more familiar with that genre."> > >
> > You've made a logical error here, confounding "one must be familiar with a genre to make judgments" with "familiarity with a genre confers the ability to make judgments." Do you question the former? I certainly question the latter.> >
excellent argument! Almost. The problem is you can't exclude yourself from the scope of "the former" It is entirely possible that both musicians whose opinions I cited are actually incapable of making such judgements. And of course this would be quite ironic since Art Tatum is one of Sasha Masakowski's favorite jazz pianists. Then the re is the degree of "familiarity" that we are talking about here. You and I are familiar with jazz as fans of music. Indeed that does not show an ability to make judgements on jazz music. OTOH Sasha Masakowski is a professional jazz musician whose livelyhood depends on her ability to make judgements when she records and performs jazz music. Also, she has a degree in jazz studies from the university of New Orleans. I think it is pretty safe to say that her knowledge of jazz runs much deeper than your garden just a basic familiarity. And as such it is quite reasonable that if there were objective "rhythmic anomalies" that you claim are "obvious" that someone with Sasha Masakowski's training, knowledge and experience would recognize it.
> > [Tchaikovsky] Tchaikovsky did make such objective assertions about Brahms, and about Bach as well. I disagree with them, just as I disagree with the judgment of these two jazz musicians.> >
He made objective claims of "wrongness?" I'd like to read up on those claims. Do you have any references?
> > > "I think you lose the argument if that is the criteria."> > >
> > I think it has no effect on the argument one way or the other. It is merely an observation about the nature of judgment, and why professionals don't necessarily have judgment that's superior to non-professionals.> >
This isn't judgement on something subjective. Your claims about "wrong rhythms" are quite objective. In such matters training, knowledge and experience do play very heavily in one's ability to make such judgements. Who do you trust in objective assessments of law, a law professor or someone who watches the People's Court?
> > You keep personifying this when neither ad hominems nor argument from authority -- which as I think about it are flip sides of the same thing -- have any validity.> >
I have not engaged in any ad hominem here. You have made objective claims about the performance in question and I have cited testimony from two musicians one of which has a degree in jazz studies that clearly run contrary to your objective claims. Your only support for your claims is your familiarity with jazz. it is not ad hominem to point out that your familiarity with jazz clearly takes a back seat to that of Sasha Masakowski's in assessing objective claims about "right" or "wrong" rhythms in jazz. I really don't think you are going to be picking up on "obviously wrong rhythms" that are being missed by a working musician with a degree in jazz studies. it is ever so slightly possible but ever so unlikely.
> > > "If that is your position I think you are plainly wrong. One can not excel at anything without the ability to evaluate the success of their en devours and the en devours of others. There is no way a musician as well versed in jazz as Sasha Mazakowski is going to miss objectively 'wrong rhythms' or 'rhythmic anomalies'."> > >
> > If that were true, all professional musicians would have equal interpretive skills.> >
That is a non sequitur. Interpretive skills are as much if not more subjective than objective. You made objective assertions of wrong rhythms. You claimed they were obvious. Such obvious errors are not going to be missed by two different musicians one of which has a degree in jazz studies and makes her living as a musician. If they are wrong then please point them out and explain how they are wrong. you can not rely on your familiarity with jazz as support of this assertion now that we have testimony of two musicians that run contrary to your claims.
> > Furthermore, you persist in oversimplifying style, supposing that it is something that a musicologist could describe. Except in the most basic degree, we aren't able to do that.> >
How have I oversimplified style and how is it relevant to your assertions of obvious objective wrongness of rhythms?
> > What makes Schnabel's performance of the Hammerklavier so compelling?> >
1. There is no consensus that is compelling
2. Claiming one finds it "compelling" is not making objective claim of "rightness" so the point does not relate
> > Certainly not technical virtuosity -- there are many pianists who have fleeter, more reliable, fingers.> >
But technical accomplishment is something that can be discussed in objective terms and in most cases better discussed by folks with training, experience and knowledge when it comes to the technical side of classical piano. And as such one would expect that if Schnabel's performance of Hammerklavier were so objectively technically flawed that it could be described as "obviously wrong" it would be something that his fellow musicians would pretty much universally recognize.
> > Can what makes his performance be described in entirely mechanistic terms?> >
Doesn't matter. If it could accurately be described as "rhythmically wrong" and "obviously" so by a layman there is little doubt that trained pianists and musicologists would see that as plain as the noses on their faces.
> > Not of course because there's no logic to it, but because we lack the analytical tools to do so.> >
There is plenty of logic behind and means of analysis of the objective measure of rhythms. If one is going to make such objective claims then one needs more than citation of their familiarity with jazz to support them. This is especially true when these alleged "obvious" "rhythmic anomalies" are going undetected by trained, experienced and knowledgeable jazz musicians.
Again, I have no issue with your taste. That is entirely subjective. If you had stopped at "I don't like it" or "it doesn't work for me." We would have never had this discussion. I don't argue taste. It is one thing not to like a particular tempo or phrasing. It's another to say it is "wrong."
"You claimed it supported your assertion of objective "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's rhythms."
It does, and yes, I did, after you had raised the question. I did not, however, make that claim at the time I posted it, as you will see if you look at my post.
It does because it's an example of great jazz playing. It doesn't in the sense that it's not the same arrangement, note for note, although as you yourself pointed out, the issue isn't note-by-note reproduction of the interpretation -- nobody would be expected to do that, or could. Rather, it's about a musically valid interpretation.
I've heard a lot of jazz played by lots of great artists, and to my ears, it has almost always had that validity. To my ears, Wang's doesn't. I could have put up a recording of Louis Armstrong and made the same point -- here's great jazz, played as it should be played.
"I think it is pretty safe to say that her knowledge of jazz runs much deeper than your garden just a basic familiarity. And as such it is quite reasonable that if there were objective "rhythmic anomalies" that you claim are "obvious" that someone with Sasha Masakowski's training, knowledge and experience would recognize it."
I agree with the first, not the second. You're still making an argument from authority.
I realized, after reading a paper online, that the numbness I'd been experiencing in my fingers and toes was the consequence of my sleep apnea. This after three different doctors, including a neurologist who conducted nerve conduction tests, failed to make the diagnosis. These men all knew far more about medicine than I do.
Arguments from authority don't mean much.
"[Tchaikovsky] made objective claims of 'wrongness?' I'd like to read up on those claims. Do you have any references?"
http://www.tchaikovsky-research.net/en/people/brahms_johannes.html
"I really don't think you are going to be picking up on "obviously wrong rhythms" that are being missed by a working musician with a degree in jazz studies."
You will never get anywhere if you persist in arguing from authority, or its converse. They are logical fallacies.
To understand an issue, one must discuss the issue, not the people discussing the issue. It's as simple as tha
"You can not rely on your familiarity with jazz as support of this assertion now that we have testimony of two musicians that run contrary to your claims."
I have never relied on my familiarity of jazz as a support of this assertion. You seem unable to get away from seeing this in terms of authority. That is a logical fallacy. I have tried to show you why, using as an example one of the greatest musical geniuses, and his bone-headed characterizations of Bach and Brahm.
"> > What makes Schnabel's performance of the Hammerklavier so compelling?> >
"1. There is no consensus that is compelling"
Actually, I suspect very much that there is: Schnabel's playing of late Beethoven is widely considered peerless and I'm one of many who consider his Beethoven Society recordings the greatest recording project ever. But what if there weren't? What difference would that make? You keep seeing this in terms of authority.
"Again, I have no issue with your taste. That is entirely subjective. If you had stopped at 'I don't like it' or 'it doesn't work for me.' We would have never had this discussion. I don't argue taste. It is one thing not to like a particular tempo or phrasing. It's another to say it is 'wrong'."
I don't like it and in my judgment it is wrong, like an umbrella made of Swiss cheese, or a two-legged stool. You can quote every authority in the world but that wouldn't affect my judgment. You -- or they -- would have to say something that actually changes my understanding to do that. Arguments from authority don't. If I am willing to disagree with the likes of Tchaikovsky and Wagner about Brahms, why would the opinion of two musicians, however esteemed, change my mind about Wang's Tatum?
. . . yes, I had heard the Tatum 1933 performance on YouTube too. So the way I hear it (and, I freely admit to only the most tangential knowledge of jazz playing and styles BTW), is that Tatum's original is a bit more agressive and slightly faster with some interesting voicings, while Yuja's slightly slower rendition is a bit more delicate, with way clearer textures - partly but not entirely the result of progress in sound recording over 75 years (which even comes through on YouTube!). I mean, seriously, is there only one proper way of doing it? I'd think an alternative way of playing it (like Yuja's) would be welcomed, not castigated.And further: if the only thing that can be done when asserting the superiority of the Tatum performance is to appeal to some kind of amorphous idea that one pianist doesn't "get" it while another one does, then that's not a good enough explanation for me. Of course, as always in music, we're reduced to an inadequate linguistic shorthand when we all try to describe our musical experiences (one performance was fiery while another was phlegmatic, etc.), but I want at least an attempt at more than that when one performance is dismissed with such facile generalities. And that's just the word that applies in the absence of other supporting evidence.
BTW, I happen to be replying to your post, Josh, but my comments apply to what Paul wrote too - don't want you to feel you're getting all the brunt of my comments. ;-)
Edits: 08/22/12
"Of course, as always in music, we're reduced to an inadequate linguistic shorthand when we all try to describe our musical experiences."
I think that pretty much sums it up. I know what I hear, but I can only describe it in the vaguest terms. A critic or musicologist could no doubt do better. For what it's worth, when I heard her play this, my reaction was "What is this, some kind of waltz?" Her interpretation is, to my ears, just plain wrong.
I think that you have to have some familiarity with a genre to sense when the style is right or not, and fully judge the skill of a performer. I find it's just like audio in that respect: the more you listen, the more you hear.
How's this for turnabout? Tatum's version of Massenet's Elegy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lCL04CT_Q
A garden variety virtuoso can't hope to equal that technique, it would take a Hofmann or Horowitz to do so. Hence my remark about masochism.
I really enjoyed it. I'll return the favor: here's a Massenet original work with "lots o'notes" too:
Thanks, that's a delightful performance.
BTW, did you see this amusing story in the comments?
"Once Liszt played a piano work by Beethoven (a Piano Sonata) but disguised the piece as by a lesser know composer - it was booed off the stage, but the unknown work disguised as composed by Beethoven was cheered! So much for tastes..."
. . . of a cartoon which originally appeared in Saturday Review. It shows two little old ladies at a restaurant, and one of them is saying to the waiter, "Now make SURE you bring us your VERY BEST wine, because we can't tell the difference!"
That reminds me of something that happened when I was a kid. I was at a stereo store playing with the new Phase Linear autocorrelator when a middle-aged guy asked me what it did. I explained and demonstrated how it reduced tape hiss. "I don't hear a difference," he said. "Should I buy one?"
"Once Liszt played a piano work by Beethoven (a Piano Sonata) but disguised the piece as by a lesser know composer - it was booed off the stage, but the unknown work disguised as composed by Beethoven was cheered! So much for tastes..."
A standard of excellence for art usually can't be set by a popularity of masses, for sure. If we did, we'd stay in the pool of mediocrity.
Alas, I fear you're right.
Not to mention that, even if you didn't like it, you might not have the guts to boo a work by Beethoven!
And then she might have realized how many years it takes to develop a subtle sensitivity to jazz rhythm. It's not easy.
I sent a link to Yuja Wang's performance to a Jazz musician I know in New Orleans. Sasha Masakowski. her dad and her teacher is Steve Masakowski. Feel free to look them both up. here is what she said...
"Wow!! Thats amazing- sounds beautiful! Art Tatum is one of my favorite pianists of all time, did you know he learned to play from transcribing player-roll pieces that were recorded by two people when he was a child? Thats why when you listen to him play solo piano it sounds like two people.
she did a wonderful job!"
I guess reactions like that from actual jazz musicians would have given Yuja Wang good reason to avoid playing such pieces. Ya think?
actor Ethan Phillips who plays tenor sax in a couple of jazz bands had this to say..
"Dude, she's amazing, complex, dense, and wonderful."
Let's have some chapter and verse! ;-)
I don't know if all of the notes were transcribed correctly, but as you know very well, the score can only hint at the what is in music. It's also pretty clear that Yuja never developed an ear for the jazz idiom. Not many classical players have been able to cross over with even modest success. Andre Previn was clearly an exception, but he was very self-effacing about his accomplishments. He considered himself a jazz dilettante even though he could hold his own in a jazz setting. Keith Jarrett is an obvious exception to the rule and he did a great job on his Handel and Shostakovich recordings. I actually like his classical playing better than most of his jazz records. Friedrich Gulda tried to crack the code but didn't do a very good job of it. Still, he made a respectable showing.
I haven't made a study of classical musicians who have tried to improvise, but Gabriela Montero created more excitement than was warranted by her playing. Hilary Hahn is an absolutely wonderful violinist, but her forays into popular music are amazingly amateurish. It seems that either because of temperament or training the two worlds rarely meet in one person. It's too bad because the results can be so exciting when done well, but in Yuja's case: well, if you have to ask...
. . . although she's no better versed in jazz than I am. ;-)
See my reply to Josh above.
The idea that there is a right or wrong way to play a jazz standard is completely against the basic principles of jazz. Just look up Tea for Two on Youtube. You will see dozens of different variations with a wide variety of rhythms and phrasings.
If someone doesn't like Yuja Wang's interpretation that is fine but to compare it with a garden variety junior high school piano student or to say it is rhythmically "wrong" smacks of pretentiousness without substance or real musical knowledge.
...even if I'm being too generous in doing so. She doesn't swing. So what?. The Kronos Quartet did some interesting things with Bill Evans and Monk, even though they felt the need of bringing in a jazz bass player to contribute that rhythmic je ne sais quoi which they couldn't provide. They still held their own in the music and mangled the original rhythm in some fascinating ways. But Yuja Wang's rhythmic drive, if you want to call it that, is just silly, and on a purely technical level, very weak. CfL drew me into a discussion of the merits of her interpretation as jazz when he said that "the 'silly rhythm' came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing". She changed a great deal and replaced the jazz sensibility in Tatum's original with a sing-song, little-girl rendition that had very little to recommend it besides its dime store virtuosity. While I can imagine an interpretation that was commanding, breathtaking or enchanting, in which the element of swing is totally absent, Yuja brought the celebratory glee of a pajama party to the music. This, oddly, didn't appeal to me.
I suggest you stick with just saying you don't like it. which is fine. Your analysis continues to be in a word, wrong.
" But Yuja Wang's rhythmic drive, if you want to call it that, is just silly, and on a purely technical level, very weak."
In reality on a "purely technical level" it is quite superior to the Tatum original which wavers in comparison. Now it would appear that you are confusing rhythm with tempo. And technically speaking there is no right or wrong tempos in Jazz.Jazz as a genre celebrates distinctive choices and reworkings of standards. It is not objectively wrong to change the tempo of a song in jazz. And in reality her change in tempo is nothing compared to Tatum's own changes in tempo in his later recordings.
"dime store virtuosity."
You are just killing your own credibility here. Very few pianists on earth have the skill set to play that piece the Yuja Wang plays it. This just shows gross ignorance on the subject of pianism.
"She changed a great deal and replaced the jazz sensibility in Tatum's original with a sing-song, little-girl rendition"
Have you taken the time to listen to the many different interpretations of this song? Are you aware that this was a standard "song" in it's original incarnation? "Jazz sensibility." In jazz every artist brings there own musical sensibility to the table. What next? Will you say the same things about Chet Baker because he likes slow tempos and likes lush melodies? The more you reference jazz sensibilities the more you kill your won arguments. Jazz is very much about personalizing the music and you are claiming Yuja Wang is "technically" wrong for having done so.
Again, nothing wrong with not liking it. But do yourself a favor and stop there. The more you argue this one the more you prove yourself "technically" wrong on the subject of jazz.
He who knows does not speak. He who speaks doesn't know.
I guess neither one of us knows doodley, but damn Sam, you sure as hell don't know much about jazz.
For what it's worth, I don't know doodley squat either, but my impression of her interpretation was (quite independently) much like yours.
I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for my opinions on this one from the others
"I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for my opinions on this one from the others."Yes. Because it opens the door to a relativism that just doesn't work. The Appassionata wouldn't sound good if it were performed with interpretation appropriate to a stride piece. It would sound ridiculous. Ditto this.
Interpretation varies, but it isn't arbitrary, it isn't divorced from style -- and not all interpretations are equal.
This comparison is particularly invidious because an ordinary pianist couldn't imitate Tatum even if she were a master of jazz style. No jazz pianist has ever equaled his technique, not even Oscar Peterson (albeit Peterson's technique was superior in a few particulars). Only a handful of classical virtuosi had the technique to do so -- and while they had sufficient virtuosity, it's not at all certain that they would have been able to master the interpretation.
Many of the greatest classical pianists of Tatum's era acknowledged his genius, by the way. Listen to his recordings and you'll get a sense of why this is so, just as with familiarity with classical performances we start to appreciate the respective merits of various classical pianists.
Edits: 08/23/12
"Yes. Because it opens the door to a relativism that just doesn't work. The Appassionata wouldn't sound good if it were performed with interpretation appropriate to a stride piece. It would sound ridiculous. Ditto this."
You are comparing very different genres with very different inherent structures and traditions. the fact is within the notations given by Beethoven there is a near endless capacity for different interpretations and the preference for one over another is subjective. There have in fact been wider variances in tempo between different interpretations of The Appassionata that have been praised by classical lovers than the differences in tempo between Art Tatum's original version of tea for Two and Yuja Wang's version of that same arrangement. Even by classical standards one can't say one version is "wrong" and the other right. Now by jazz standards it is utterly absurd to make such claims of right or wrong. Again you may not like it but that is your taste not some objective measure.
"Interpretation varies, but it isn't arbitrary, it isn't divorced from style -- and not all interpretations are equal."
If you think Yuja Wang's interpretation is arbitrary you are plainly mistaken. You may not understand her interpretation and the stylings may not work for you but to claim that the interpretation is arbitrary and lacks style demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word style and a failure to recognize the merits of the interpretation. Indeed not all interpretations are equal but they are subjective. You are confusing your subjective preferences with some non existent objective standards of interpretation. That is down right ironic when one considers the true ideals of jazz which is to take standards and personalize them.
"This comparison is particularly invidious because an ordinary pianist couldn't imitate Tatum even if she were a master of jazz style. No jazz pianist has ever equaled his technique, not even Oscar Peterson (albeit Peterson's technique was superior in a few particulars). Only a handful of classical virtuosi had the technique to do so -- and while they had sufficient virtuosity, it's not at all certain that they would have been able to master the interpretation."
I assure you that as far as technique is concerned that while Tatum was arguably one of if not the best in all of jazz on a technical level he had nothing on Yuja Wang when it comes to technique. how this is even an issue is lost on me. Are you suggesting that there is room in this world for only one recording of any given piece of music? if not then the comparisons are academic not some sort of contest where the loser is shamed for trying.
"Many of the greatest classical pianists of Tatum's era acknowledged his genius, by the way."
yeah, I am quite aware of that. many of the greatest classical pianists of today's era acknowledge his genius. Guess what, Yuja Wang acknowledges his genius. Probably why she chose to record his arrangement of a song.
"Listen to his recordings and you'll get a sense of why this is so, just as with familiarity with classical performances we start to appreciate the respective merits of various classical pianists."
I have pretty strong collection of Art Tatum recordings and have considered him to be one of my top jazz pianists.
. . . I appreciate the way you've been defending Yuja's playing against the individual negative points from Paul and Josh. I just wanted to highlight your comments, "Even by classical standards one can't say one version is "wrong" and the other right. Now by jazz standards it is utterly absurd to make such claims of right or wrong." Those comments are "right on" in my book.
It's funny, because there are some listeners who try to enforce what they believe to be certain stylistic standards on various types of music, be it jazz, Baroque, or whatever. The idea that there can only be a certain type of rhythmic lilt in a performance of a jazz piece is not that far off from the idea that you should never perform Baroque music with more than what I would call a dessicated amount of vibrato (to return to one of my favorite topics)!
In any case, these stylistic enforcer type listeners remind me of acolytes of an organization in which only a tiny few are deemed worthy enough to enter! ;-)
Now of course, I'm sure there's a threshold of stylistic inappropriateness at which both you and I might join the ranks of Josh and Paul, but basically, my beef with them is that they seem to be perceiving the jazz style too narrowly. I'll mention again my lack of experience in the jazz idiom, but you seem to have a much better grasp of it than I do. In any case, I guess the question really is, where is that stylistic threshold? I think it's different for every listener. That's one reason why people get so passionate about their musical preferences.
I think you're over-analyzing it. Two of us listened and had much the same reaction, independently, to her playing. No thresholds or anything; style and interpretation are a good deal more complex than that.
What I suspect you're missing is the experience of hearing more of Tatum's playing and coming to appreciate just how remarkable it is. "If it ain't got that swing . . ."
Tatum's playing led many jazz players to despair of their ever being able to accomplish anything. Les Paul gave up the piano to play the guitar. Oscar Peterson was traumatized and almost gave up the piano. Charlie Parker was also driven to despair, but Vladimir Horowitz's reaction may be the most interesting. Art Tatum was a good friend of his and Horowitz wrote some variations on Tea for Two and played them for Tatum. Tatum thanked him, made some compliments, and then sat down and played variations on Tea for Two for a half hour. This haunted Horowitz for years--probably for the rest of his life. In an interview filmed in his New York apartment he started to refer to himself sarcastically as the guy who could play anything. His wife could see that the he was going to bring up the Tatum incident and tried to shut him up before he publicly belittled himself. It was only part of the interview where Horowitz didn't seem to be the master of the situation.
It took me quite a while to warm up to Art Tatum. He seemed to be playing the same riffs over and over again on whatever song he happened to be playing. It didn't seem to be particularly inventive and I assumed that his reputation was based on raw speed. But the longer I listened, the more I discovered what he was doing. When someone like Oscar Peterson thinks that Tatum was the greatest jazz pianist who ever lived, it's a good bet that he's on to something. I find Tatum mesmerizing now, but he's not an open door for many. He certainly wasn't for me. It's taken me all of my life to learn to listen to jazz and I know that I'll never hear as much as others have. You know there's this thing about subtlety: it's subtle. And I wish I had more of it.
That's a great story about Horowitz. I didn't know he and Tatum were friends, although I know that Horowitz expressed his admiration for him, along with most of the other great pianists of the time.
I've read some of the stories of other jazz musicians coming across Tatum. I can't say I blame them for being intimidated. He was head and shoulders above everybody else. I love the stories too about the aspiring musicians who heard his recordings for the first time, and assumed they must be a trick, with two pianists playing.
I know what you mean about warming up to Tatum. I'd always loved Fats Waller, who's music is so infectious it delights immediately. When I first heard Tatum, my reaction was much like yours -- I was impressed by his virtuosity, but found his riffs off putting. They seemed almost to get in the way of the music. It was only gradually that I discovered the genius in his treatments and started to delight in them. Maybe I would have done so sooner, but jazz wasn't my main thing: I was very familiar with rock and classical, but while my father was a jazz buff and I had a friend who played stride piano and was a big fan of Oscar Peterson, it had never been my focus.
I do like to think that anyone with a good musical ear will come to appreciate Tatum as we did.
I think maybe you understand jazz better than you give yourself credit for understanding it. What seems to be lost on some folks here is what Yuja Wang actually did with the piece and what she did *not* do with the piece.
I can say with a high degree of certitude that Art Tatum probably never played the same exact notes twice when he played Tea for Two. Jazz is, at it's very roots an art form that is about spontaneous improvisation. For those who actually are familiar with Art Tatum and his different arrangements of Tea for Two and for those who are familiar enough with jazz as a genre and how standards such as Tea for Two are treated and have been treated through out the ever developing history of jazz one should know what Yuja Wang was *NOT* doing. What she was not doing was trying to be a jazz musician and improvise on a jazz standard. She was taking a specific arrangement by Art Tatum of a jazz standard and putting her own interpretation to it. That is what classical artists do. And that is what she did int he studio and in concert halls as a encore for her classical performances.
What she has done is to take a jazz arrangement and interpret it with her own distinct sensibilities of a classical artist who loves jazz. It thus becomes a crossover piece. If one doesn't like crossover pieces so be it. But to say it is wrong by any objective measure is to fail to understand what was actually being done.
God help them if they ever check out Yo Yo Ma's crossover en devours in traditional country and folk music.
Sorry Scott, but I stand by my opinion regarding the musical merit of their respective interpretations, and their relative technical proficiency.
I usually cringe when a classical musician tries to play jazz so, I hope not.
I vote for Busoni's transcriptions of Bach organ pieces.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
At least not with Yuja. She happens to really like jazz but the vast majority of her encores are classical. That weekend she also encored with the Gluck melody Saturday night and the Bizet Carmine fantasy Sunday.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: