|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.219.188.187
In Reply to: RE: I agree - hope I didn't imply otherwise [nt] posted by Old SteveA on August 23, 2014 at 12:04:06
"I'm hoping you were just playing "Devil's Advocate" with me , but in case you were'nt I guess a short explanation for what I meant is in order."
Definitely not playing devil's advocate. On the surface "the craft of being a musician" would simply be one's technical skill set. Craft and skills are pretty much directly related.
"There appear to be a lot of persons recording music who are more interested in showing off
a particular "style" , & that "style" seems to "pop up" (in varying degrees) in all the music they
play."
I guess I need some clarification here as well. What does it mean "to show off a particular style?" Maybe you could give me some examples. What would be the difference for instance between simply playing a particular style and showing off a particular style?
"I don't know but that could mean their "musical chops" may not be strong enough to move beyond what they try stylistically."
Again, not playing devil's advocate but I'm not sure follow. "musical chops" as opposed to "technical chops?" Maybe some examples would help clarify.
"To move outside of this comfort zone takes an understanding of what an instrument (or voice) can do."
That is an interesting comment. I would think it would simply take ambition regardless of any such understanding. It seems to me a musician could have a profound understanding of what an instrument can do but chose not to go outside their comfort zone. It also seems the opposite is true.
"There are many "musicians' who can be stylistically strong in anything they do. The same can't be said for a lot of "entertainers" (be they recording artists or not). I'm not a fan of those
who use music as a "personal,vehicle" to show us "how good they are"."
Examples would help me here too.
Follow Ups:
Scott -- I feel a little guilty for starting the thread down this path, so I'll try to give an example of what I was talking about, anyway. You've heard of Yuja Wang. Well, their is a youtube video of her playing the Chopin Waltz op. 64 no.2 in 2006, and then another one playing that same Waltz in 2012.
Notice how the 2006 version is good, but the 2012 version is that much better, with more sensitive phrasing and intelligent use of rubato? That is an example of how a pianist with great technique (not that this piece is the world's greatest challenge strictly from a technical point of view -- I've played it, haven't you?) matures in adulthood and begins to get closer to the heart of great music, though she could probably play all the notes at lightening speed by the age of six.
Now compare her 2012 version with that of Russian pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff, also on youtube. He has good technique too. Also, he has a similar approach to the piece as Yuja, with more exaggerated rubato than a lot of today's pianists use. But his is playing on a yet higher level. Notice how the coda ethereally floats away. And there is pulse and liveliness throughout, never dirge-like dragging, though it clocks in at only about 10 seconds faster than Yuja's. This Rachmaninoff guy should probably do more piano playing.
Again, this piece is not a technical Mt. Everest. Just about any intermediate piano student has played it. But there is playing it, and then there is playing it. If you do not agree or understand, I can ony refer to Louis Armstrong's response when asked, "What is jazz?"
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Chopin of all composers? Probably the single most affected composer of listener imprint. To say that one interpretation is "a higher level" than another is plainly mistaken. One version may speak to you more than another but that is very personal. Ironically Yuja and I had this very discussion about Chopin when we were listening to Moravec's Nocturnes together.
Funny, Scott. On the one hand you say these things are very much a matter of personal taste (which is true) but on the other I am "plainly mistaken". Subjective opinions can't be right or wrong, and few things are more subjective than tastes in music, which is all most of my or others' posts here are about. I gave my opinion with a specific example, not that it is very fair, I admit, to set Ms. Wang or any current pianist against Rachmaninoff. But it is a subjective opinion, nothing more or less.
And if you and she are listening to Ivan Moravec, our opinions are probably not that far apart. ;)
I suggest you go back and get some clarification on exactly what it was I said you were "plainly mistaken about." It wasn't your subjective opinions on Rachmaninoff or Yuja Wang. It was your implication that beyond the subjective there were clear objective measures of higher and lower value between those various interpretations of Chopin. It actually is perfectly fair to set Yuja Wang's interpretations against Rachmaninoff's or anyone else's. And it is perfectly legitimate to prefer Rachmaninoff's performances. It is also perfectly legitimate to prefer Yuja Wang's performances. They both play Chopin extremely well.
As Yuja and I were listening to the Moravec disc she would run the gamut of love and hate for his interpretations. And this was what lead to the discussion about how Chopin, perhaps more than any other composer, lends himself to the effect of preconception imprint. It's not that Yuja thought some of Moravec's interpretations were bad, or of a lower level sensitivity or intelligence. It was that she had very strong imprints of her own on how she likes to hear those pieces played. With certain pieces Moravec's interpretations were so far from how Yuja likes the pieces to be played that she couldn't get through them. When we talk about musicians of the quality of Rachmaninoff, Moravec and Yuja Wang we are talking about musicians who really understand music. When we form preferences with this kind of music it is highly personal and does not often reflect any deeper or lesser understanding of the music. The interpretations are different but none of them represent a "more sensitive phrasing and intelligent use of rubato." There is no lack of intelligence or sensitivity that went into Rachmaninoff's. Yuja Wang's or Moravec's performances. They are all extremely well played and are all different. Some will speak more to you and some will speak more to me. Some we will agree upon and some we will not.
There are musicians that are highly accomplished whom I simply can not connect with. Pianists like Brendel whose work strikes me as consistently sloppy and lack luster. But I would never question his understanding of the music he played or imply that he never understood something about it that I did. So yeah, artistry, once we get to a certain level of accomplishment is almost completely subjective and choices are seldom a result of any objective lack of sensitivity or understanding of the music but more due to very personal imprints on what each individual sees in a given piece of music. The only thing we can easily and objectively judge and assess as higher or lower levels would be a musician's technical excellence.
Even "technical excellence" isn't an objectively quantifiable thing. No two artists have exactly the same technique, even the most skilled. Art can never be reduced to a sport like tennis, where there is a clear and absolute no. 1, no. 2, etc. John Marks knows that when he talks about the "best" recording of the Barber violin concerto. Most posters here know that, however strongly they word their opinions.
Sorry, i guess I have a "bone to pick" with several genres of "popular" music these days. I realized that I made no specific mention of that . All my mentioning of style was completely directed toward "pop singers" (along with the comfort level talk). (I really can't think of any
Classical Musicians lacking the ambition & technical skills needed to be considered person who approach what they do with a " Craftsman's" like attitude)
You do see the differentiation between between someone who can play music on an instrument & a musician. What I "rail" against is all the instrument players & people singing on" popular" recordings , who appear to be just players. As Joni Mitchell once said in an interview. "There is very little " muse" in Music today.
In retrospectect , I should have left my comments on this alone, as i was just listing reasons
why I don't listen to this music anyway.
Sorry, that I did'nt really add any value to the "Technician's skills" discussion ( just wait , you'll
be old & struggling to maintain coherency one day also) & with that I'll say what Alfred Hitchcock would say "Good Eeevening " ( hint; I'll concede any point I didn't sufficiently explain)
I was completely thinking classical music. This clears a lot up thanks.
Actually, I can think of 1 Classical Musician who, although given the details of hst history may
have had his ambition & heart in the right place, appeared to lack some needed technical
skills. David Helfgott.
After seeing his story, & a few other things about the impact that Piano Competitions possibly
may have, left me wondering if these completions were really such a good idea. The first
thing that comes to mind is that I can't think of anything .that has less of a need for a competitive element to work than music. Is there really an overabundance of budding "Virtousi" that we need to "pair down" their number ?
I do realize the long tradition of the competitions, but I wonder how many more musicians
changed their plans to become Concert Artists for reasons not having to do with their
years upon years of acquiring musical skills.
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: