|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.219.87.26
In Reply to: RE: Oh my! It's a red-letter day! Now here's Fremer bragging about his ignorance! posted by Chris from Lafayette on October 20, 2020 at 15:09:01
There is a certain irony as Mikey is usually up-in-arms against the NYT over their audio technology coverage being too pro digital. Maybe you can combine forces against the NYT or, perhaps, you could write something disparaging about vinyl and the pair of you can go at it.
As a non musician I am a little intrigued by performance differences. In Lang Lang's Goldberg, for example, is the problem that he actually deviates from what is written on the score - presumably not the notes but the timing perhaps? Or is it that he deviates from how you think Bach would have played it or from how you would have played it?
Regards,
13DoW
ps. Are you allowed to post so much of another article on AA?
Follow Ups:
"is the problem that he actually deviates from what is written on the score - presumably not the notes but the timing perhaps?"
To me, that's not a problem at all. In fact, it's stylistically appropriate to change or add certain notes, especially on the repeats. My problem with Lang Lang's changes is that he can't always execute his own changes cleanly and/or convincingly! And, yes, it's even permitted to change the timings of the notes within certain stylistic limitations. And sometimes, a musician's changes can even be stylistically INapproprite, yet so well done and so compelling that audiences can still be won over. Moreover, what was thought to be stylistically appropriate in one generation may be in a later generation thought to be inappropriate. So it's not the changes themselves which are my problem with Lang Lang's performance, but rather his inability to make his changes sound "professional" if you will - IOW, he does not show evidence of a sufficient level of control and discipline to justify the expression which he's trying to achieve. Maybe that's all I want to say for now (aside from my original post on this subject from a few weeks ago).
that great. art is that which conceals art -- think Alec Guinness (or such other as recommends him/herself) disappearing into a rôle so completely that you are conscious only of the character, not of the performer. The antithesis is "chewing the scenery". I can't imagine buying a piece of classical music (jazz is different) I didn't like just to hear a particular performer, and if I like the music, I want to hear it without undue distraction. (I can't imagine buying a ticket to see John Wayne star in Hamlet.). WRT music new to me, if I like it well enough, I'll generally listen repeatedly, thereby acquiring some sense of the composer's intent and thus learning to be annoyed by any performer trying to get more attention for self than for the music.
Of course, one man's distraction is another's . . . .
Jeremy
"I can't imagine buying a piece of classical music (jazz is different) I didn't like just to hear a particular performer,"
I'll disagree.
Up to a point, sometimes a really good & charismatic performer can change my mind about pieces. Or maybe I think it's that some pieces really need help from the performer.
My imprint example: Martha Argerich and the famous/infamous Rachmaninov 3rd. I know it's very much Martha first and Rachmaninov less, but honestly I think the piece is better. Without a really great performer who takes risks and puts in a strong personality (add also the astonishing Horowitz 40's version I was pointed to here!), that Rach 3rd can feel like the dreaded "too many notes".
Now so far nobody's been able to do this to make me enjoy Bruckner, too many notes and worse, why did they have to be so damn *long*?
I don't understand, in context, what "charismatic" means. Generally I don't watch the musicians playing the music I listen to; even at a live concert, I often close my eyes & concentrate on what I hear. That may be a confession of my weaknesses -- I am colour-blind, and not visually acute. Mind you, if I attend a ballet (or an opera, &c), that is intentionally to experience a (at least partially) visual art. But I've never seen, say, the 1st violinist of a string quartet physically emote in any way that added to my appreciation of the music (frequently the contrary). And with all due respect to Chris, I don't need my babes to be musicians or vice versa; in context, even figuratively speaking. Until tonight, I've never even imagined how much better the world would be -- how much more I'd enjoy the Beethoven or Schubert -- were Schnabel a gorgeous blonde.
I cannot think of a single classical piece, devoid of inspiration, brought to life by a performer (though I have heard murder). The inspiration is surely in the notes; a performer can illuminate it or, equally, bury it. Illumination requires, I think, increased focus on the subject matter, not focus on the performer (an entirely different subject matter).
But I readily agree re "takes risks". Artists afraid to take risks produce stolid art. Still, I think what you describe implies penetrating further into the music, not distracting from it. Sometimes a performer can expose what was really always there, just nobody noticed it before, or nobody brought it out so clearly; I applaud that just as you do. Of course, what one perceives as depth, another might find to be misunderstanding -- that gives rise to enjoyable exchanges in fora such as this. There are times when I disagree even with myself -- though I generally revere Gould (but for all his Mozart and some of his Beethoven), sometimes I find him idiosyncratic to the point of distraction.
I must say, though, that in championing Horowitz, you go, I strongly suspect, too far. But I don't know that particular performance, and I never watched him play (grin).
Jeremy
I had a listen to that performance on Qobuz and did not get past the opening Aria. The live version was better but not engaging enough to make me want to listen more. I sampled a few of the more recent recordings and liked what I heard of Levit's recording so I'll give it listen all through. One I did listen to all through yesterday was Trio Zimmerman's string trio version that I enjoyed very much.
Regards
13doW
I heard yesterday aft on the radio what struck me as some very sensitive playing of the French Suites by a new-to-me guy named Caspar Frantz; more conventional than Gould but quite lovely. Do you know him?
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy--Never heard of this pianist, but have you heard Perahia's French Suites? I think they're beautiful.
Well, pbarach, I like much to most of what I've heard of Perahia, including some Bach that I have in the house but oddly can't put my hands on at the moment, though I'm pretty sure it's not the French Suites. I'll try to hear them.
There seems a strange tendency among some geniuses of classical piano to "fall flat" when playing Bach --2 examples are Richard Goode and Artur Schnabel. Perahia is not one of those.
Jeremy
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: