|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.34.158.106
In Reply to: RE: OK, So Who Are the Most OVER-rated Pianists? posted by Tadlo on November 26, 2014 at 05:22:14
I don't have a dog in the fight--a friend posed the question while saying that the "Underrated" thread was not what was needed.
My take-away is in the form of two points:
One, "Horses for Courses." An English expression meaning that a horse that runs well on a dry track might not run well on a muddy track. (Not that all such expectations or judgments hold water. We rarely, except over the car radio when a piece has already started before we get in to drive, encounter a performance anonymously, but I can assure you that such epiphanies, when they come, are valuable.)
I not only think that there are very few if any pianists who are great in "everything," I also have no problem at all with a pianist with a narrower-than-average repertoire. It's rare for the same actor to do well in both King Lear and Hamlet during the same season (though of course over the decades, a great Hamlet may 30 years later be a great King Lear).
Two, not to be discounted is the fact that the performance of music is a performance art, and that the relationship between performer and audience member or recording artists and listener is a complex non-deterministic system... .
Heifetz, Piatigorsky, Rachmaninoff, and Milstein were icons of aspirational culture at a time when many Americans had mixed feelings of envy while claiming irrelevance about Europe and European culture. There was a bit of a reaction in the deportment and public personas of artists like Roy Harris, Carl Ruggles, Lou Harrison, and to a degree Aaron Copland. But even today, performers with glittering good looks, whether Kiri te Kanawa, Anna Netrebko, or Anne-Sophie Mutter, seem to have an advantage over people who don't fuss as much over their public image.
Case in point, could the under-rated-ness of Ivan Moravec be related to his rather total lack of Van-Cliburn-like good looks and media charm?
So, our responses are multivariant. We think we learn things about the kind of person a musician is, and then we might we project that back into the music--regardless whether it belongs there.
So, everybody, thanks for the Rorschach Blots!
(This one is of two music critics playing Patty-Cake.)
JM
Follow Ups:
Well, that was my point when I posted in the previous thread (although I did not elaborate as eloquently as you have here).
That said, I do think that there are some performers who are more show and media hype than substance. It is true in the world of popular music, where musical talent (or lack of it) can be minimal in some cases. That occurs less frequently in the world of classical music, I suppose. It takes a great deal of work and dedication to achieve even a modest career performing and recording. That said, there are those of less fabulous talent who have benefited from the machinery of success, and some extraordinarily talented individuals who were bypassed by the star making machinery.
The unfortunate fact of life for any musician is that talent and commitment only take one so far, that agents and happenchance and non-musical factors can make a big difference in who gets on the biggest stage under the brightest lights. It's not always the most talented ones who get the big contracts with the big labels and the glossies.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
However, I didn't post an opinion just for the reasons you mention (although it took all my will power not to mention certain names!) LOL!
BTW, KtK and A-SM are OLD, OLD, OLD! And even La Trebs has become middle aged and fat! (Well, compared to the way she used to look!)
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: