God, I wish I had half the time you all have to come up with these thread topics that generate thousands of hours of down the rabbit hole minutia, Maybe when I'm retired and have done everything else I plan to and literally find myself waking up one day thinking "hmmm...what can I post that will then keep me engaged for a few months and hundred of hours of my life"...
Let's talk music, no genre boundaries
This is an offshoot of the jazz thread. I and others found that we could not talk about jazz without discussing other musical genres, as well as the philosophy of music. So, this is a thread in which people can suggest good music of all genres, and spout off your feelings about music itself.
334 responses Add your response
In spite of the fact that Bob chose to not check his cynicism at the door and felt it was ok to ignore decorum, or simple pleasantry, I will try and be proactive and point out what he is missing. One never knows. This, of course, is assuming that he likes music at all. For starters, Bob refers to all the “minutia” that we waste time discussing. Minutia?! Seriously?! Most of what we discuss here is only scratching the surface of all that music is and can be learned about it. So, Bob, join the party! What music do you listen to?
|
I’m posting a youtube video of Baryshnikov dancing Twyla Tharp. Her brilliance can be seen in the unusual, hesitating, stagger-steps, and sexual moves he makes. Also her humor which is often about the sexes. If you don’t like this, then you truly don’t like Twyla Tharp. I was lucky enough to meet her one day. My wife and I had gone to see her company dance at UCLA and she was sitting behind us. We struck up a conversation and she was absolutely down to earth. |
I don't really have to think a lot about what to post. My problem is also that I don't have a ton of time, but I can't converse about this subject with anyone else. My wife's eyes would be rolling at my first sentence. And I really enjoy talking about music. As far as coming up with a subject, for me this forum is a conversation. There are so many triggers for me to react to, and I have many ideas that I don't have time to post. So, thinking about what to post doesn't take much time. But I'm a conversationalist, and I never run out of ideas during a conversation. So, it's all kind of natural for me. Plus I have been listening to music for well over sixty years so I have a lot of information stored on the hard drive (or cloud?). |
For me, music is by far, the best art form there is. Listening to music is not a casual experience for me. I become entirely engrossed while listening to music, and transported emotionally, intellectually, mentally. Since I am nearly obsessed with music, that near obsession extends to discussing and reading about music, and hearing what other people have to say about music. It does not take thousands of hours to create or post on these threads from time to time. Not even close. And if by coming to these posts, with the possibility of discovering a some great new music, band, composer, musician, etc, is well worth the time. |
The time we use is precious. You can work for more money or you can read a book any oligarchs will miss because they dont have time nor the passion to read it... I listen music 4 hours a day, i read 4 hours a day, i walk 3 hours a day... The most important thing is the book which could have change my perspective and which i can miss ...One book if it is an important one will explode your mind... I love discovering new music times to times , but what i love the most is listening the same geniuses again and again for all my life... I am retired... But my job was, lucky me, advising people a book useful for their field of interest... I miss students... I meditate more now and if i discover a tremendous important book i had no student to advise about it ... It is my only problem and it bother me...
|
Playing an opera without video seems to me like going to an IMAX picture theatre and wearing a blindfold! Bit like buying SACD and throwing away more than half the channels ... I have lots of opera videos I have not got round to actually watching yet! And quite a few sound only opera disks, include Solti conducting Wagner's Ring Cycle. IMAX = another great Aussie invention, overthrowing the conventional wisdom about filming on its head (or at least, its side!) |
I had season tickets to the L.A. opera for twelve years. When I listen to operas, I've seen them produced once or twice. I must say, though, that seeing these operas was invaluable. I couldn't listen to Puccini operas until I saw them on stage. And Puccini has to be one of the easiest opera composers to listen to. The same with Mozart. Now I can see the production in my mind and happily listen to a recording. BTW, Igmar Bergman made a wonderful documentary film about Mozart's Magic Flute. If you haven't seen it, it is well worth watching. |
The last time i was stunned by an opera was Akhnaten of Philip Glass. The way he portrayed musically the Ancient Egypt feeling about spiritual meaning was stunning. I was so stunned i wanted to read his biography... My next will probably be Kepler ...
For me i dont want to "see" the theater of the opera only the sound and music... I see music when listening and seeing anything else will intrude and impede my experience... But going live to an opera is a thing in itself and i understand people who want to "see" it...
I discovered the miraculous beauty of Opera listening from TV an opera of Mozart "Cosi Fan Tutte"... For me a totally uninteresting libretto and visuals... but i entered in an ecstasy understanding with my ears how Mozart genius makes of each voice a perfect musical instrument speaking to one another in a perfect musical way...No other composer ever do it in this "perfect" way...Not even Puccini which is my favorite opera composer...Mozart reach Bach transcendent level with a ridiculous story, incredible, using only voices as we can use a piano... It was useless almost a desecration to understand the words and the action play... I do not want at all ... I succeed because i dont understand italian and it was easy to see without seeing on the TV set only listening... i discovered Mozart absolute genius this day 40 years ago...
But paradoxically, there was an opera i wanted to see not only listening to... The Faust of Busoni...But by Fisher Dieskau...but he is dead and i doubt i will ever see it... Faust is not like "cosi fan tutte" a ridiculous story.
Another example : I like Kurt Weil very much... All of his music... But i dont feel at all the urge to see the three penny opera... Only listening it with Lotte Lenya is well enough...I could see from my recording version with her, a prodigiously well recorded opera, i could see in my first acoustic room all the play all around me even when the singers walked singing and turning their head my eyes closed or open so good was my acoustic... Alas! i sold my house, it is another story...
By the way, i had seen the Magic flute by Bergman and i did not enter in ecstasy like listening to Cosi Fan tutte, why ? Simple the story of the magic flute is a masterpiece tale not a stupid story, and Bergman realisation is a masterpiece movie... But here all the music serve a goal which is telling the tale especially the visuals use by the director...Nothing is pure music in itself like in the Cosi case...The goal of Mozart is more philosophicaql than musical here ... The greatest opera of Mozart are the magic flute and Don Giovanni...but his greatest pieces are the Requiem and Cosi fan Tutte... Which are more than a mass and more than an opera, in the case of Cosi especially pure music like the Art of the fugue by Bach...It is like Mozart saying, gave to me a stupid text and a stupid play and i will create an absolute piece of music... Incredible he did it...But he could not do it again like Bach writing once the art of the fugue...Mozart wrote the art of song...
|
Always a treat to watch Baryshnikov dance, the guy could make cats jealous if they were able to discern such....good to know he's still with us and mentoring the up and coming.... |
I’m almost positive you’ve heard of him, but for those who haven’t, here’s a taste of John Fahey. I went to several of his concerts in which he was all alone, like here, playing the guitar in what I take to be a classical or at least semi-classical style. It looks like he’s holding the guitar on his right leg like they do playing classical music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReW9uUYm-DA And here's Jagger singing that same blues tune. |
I wish i could explain the difference between spectacularly genius music and deeply spiritual one... The requiem of Berlioz is pure incredible genius but do not move me spiritually as Christus of Listz or Bruckner motets for example... Monteverdi so genius he is in his sacred music do not move me either and beware i love him to death, i listened his 8th madrigal books one thousand times at least...But there not an ounce of spirituality in this absolute master of expression... Josquin Des Prez and Hildegard de Bingen unlike Monteverdi and my beloved Gesulado are spiritual masters in a way nor Monteverdi neither Gesualdo can be ...
Sorabji is anything save spiritual... Scriabin is almost spiritual in a demonic powerful way... I wish i could put in words what is spiritual music...Why it matter the most...
|
Yes; of course, I’ve heard of/heard Fahey. Never caught him live but did catch Leo Kottke in the late ’70’s and still listen to him once in awhile. I actually prefer Bert Jansch to Fahey or Kottke. Having said that, I’d rather listen to Fahey than Jagger for that particular tune. I may be in a minority but I’ve always regarded Beggar’s Banquet as an uneven record. |
I will focus on an example to try to discuss "spiritual" music versus "genius" music. I don't think there will be much argument if I say that Mozart was a genius. Like a great jazz master, he was known to sit at the piano and riff for long periods, many bars of music. His music set up a musical premise, and he was able to take that premise and view it from all sides, right-side up and upsidedown, and always be able to keep his balance in order to resolve that premise, and it delighted his audiences. Yet I have heard Mozart live and have been bored. It seems too glib. Too much intellect. When we get to Mozart's later music, however, it begins to change, with the culmination of his Requiem Mass, which I think is deeply spiritual. His later piano concertos also have a depth that is lacking in his earlier music. So, I think I can say that Mozart went through a spiritual transformation as he got closer to death. And I don't think it was strictly Christian. He began to feel the essence of music. Music can delight our minds or move us on a deeper emotional/spiritual level, or with the greatest masters like Bach it can do both. What do I mean by the essence of music? Why do humans enjoy music? Why did the ancients make music? Instruments have been found over 40,000 years old, and almost certainly older instruments made of wood were destroyed by time. Why would the ancients have taken the time and effort for music when food and shelter were far more important to our survival? There was something inside the earliest humanity that could only have been expressed through music and other arts, and humanity was obsessed with expressing whatever that was. For so many reasons, especially humanity's early obsession with the sky and stars, I belive that humanity felt connected to the univese. And music was a call to all existence that we too belonged. And that to me is spirituality. Most music is ego bound. The musician wants to say, "Look at me! I exist!" And by their dazzling intelligence we recognize these masters. But other musicians who are more deeply spiritual I think are saying, "we--all of humanity--belong." We belong to the world in which we live and take sustenance, and we belong to the entire universe. To me and perhaps you, the feeling of "we belong" is a more potent message than "look at my dazzling intelligence." It can be fun and envigorating to be dazzled by another human intelligence, but it is a much deeper and more satisfying connection to be wise enough to tap into the spiritual message, "We belong." |
I've also heard Kottke and liked him. Today I was playing Jorma Kaukonen. I enjoyed him. Is that the style of guitar that you play? I forgot that "Poor Boy" was on "Beggar's Banquet." I thought of Jagger when I heard the song played on guitar. I am always amazed at what a good Blues singer he is. Of course, he's a great singer in general, IMHO. |
I’ve never had the natural right hand coordination or the patience to learn that style. Back in high school, my original guitar mentor was an excellent fingerpicker. When I askef him how he developed it, he said his fingers "just seemed to know where to go". I’ve seen Jorma once solo and twice with Hot Tuna. I bought Quah on vinyl when it first came out and am still enjoying it. He did an album with some Bluegrass/Newgrass hotshots (don’t recall the title) you might like. "Blue Country Heart"? |
I understand you. I consider many didgeridoo Australian music spiritual.... Pygmies chorus too ... By spirituality i had not suggested only Christianity, but any inside deeply moving relation with God or Nature as sacred... Your observation about Mozart going from genius to deeply spiritual is my observation too .. But the relation with Nature which is sacred music is different from Hildegard Of Bingen or Tallis moving spirituality toward God. But the other day i was listening Russian female chorus performing pilgrim songs ( song suggesting walk and prayers) it was very near the pygmies songs ... The relation between men of the same tribe and walking and praying or singing in Nature is sacred music... It is why i loved it...
i cannot listen only geniuses composers or musicians... I need also spiritually, sacred Christian, Buddhist or African or Indian devotion music... Music without spirituality cannot fulfill all my musical needs so genius it is... Poetry is also bordeline to the sacred or the spirit or the religious... Think about Leonard Cohen singing about Joan of Arc... Or even Dylan singing "murder no foul" is a sacred musical event in the US history... Music without spirituality or poetry is not very interesting for me... The 8th book of madrigals of Monteverdi is pure poetry... Poetry gives us a minimum of spirituality...
|
@audio-b-dog - John Fahey - straight outa Takoma Park, MD. He can really take you on a journey with just one acoustic guitar. Brilliant records, brilliant live performances.... |
I went to a number of John Fahey concerts in Berkeley. He must have settled there for a while. They were engrossing, and I still have my beat-up John Fahey album from the sixties. In terms of one guitar engrossing an audience, perhaps classical guitar is the only other thing that will do it. And at the top of my list is the Villa Lobos Preludes. They are as deep and dark and haunting as a poem by Lorca. One's from Spain and the other's from Brazil, I know, but in my mind they share the same duende--darkness of the soul. |
@audio-b-dog - Indeed, he may have resided in the Bay Area for awhile. His record label, Takoma Records, was named after Takoma Park, and there are lots of suburban-DC Maryland references in his song titles, like 'Dance of the Inhabitants of the Invisible City of Bladensberg'. I think I may have seen him at Freight and Salvage or the Starry Plough. I'm from MD but have lived in San Francisco for 50 years. |
My wife grew up in Oakland and attended Berkeley, too, only four years behind me. We wouldn't have gotten on then. I was a motorcycle-riding screw-off. I literarly dropped out of my junior year just before finals without telling anyone. I took my mother's money for school and went off to Europe and parts east. I got very sick with hepititas, but it was worth it. I learned a lot on that trip. I was around the Bay Area for five or six years. My sister still has a house in Berkeley. And my wife and I visited often when her parents were alive. We had dreamed of moving to San Francisco, but we've pretty much been priced out of the market. Besides, I like the warmth of Southern Calif. Do you go to the opera or symphonies or any other music up there?
|
I must admit that spirituality in music is difficult to talk about. Especially from my point of view because I see religions as something that get in the way. But first, of course, the composer must have a depth of feeling and spiritual connection. If that is the case, then any metaphors can be used as a lattice on which spiritual music can be strung. IMHO, however, religions are misogynistic. Just look at this quote from the Bible: *“To the woman he said, This misogyny can be seen in many other aspects of religion. The Jews were told by their God to take the Holy Land by force, killing everyone who lived there. The "other" was already named in the Bible.The Quran was also about holy lands and war. And if you look at very religious Jews and Muslims, as well as Christians, women are still considered beneath men. Let's add one more thing that in my mind interferes with what I call "spirituality." God made man (not women) stewards over the earth, and there was a hierarchy. God, the Creator, who was outside of the universe and his creation, counted on men who were made in His image to rule the earth wisely. Big mistake, I think. In the Adam and Eve section of the Bible, Eve is tempted by what used to be the symbols of the Goddess religions. Namely, the tree, in which carvings of godesses can be seen sitting at the tree top. And the serpent whom the goddess held in her hand. The serpent was a symbol of renewal because it shed its skin each year. Of course the ancients thought of woman as creator, because that was all they had ever seen. Babies came from mothers. And their goddesses were pregnant women rather than nubile young virgins. But the goddess as creator was not outside the universe. She was part of her creation. She created it by being part of it. When women dug in the earth they could feel the goddess. She was part of the clothes they wore. And now we get to the part about belonging. Of course people felt as though they belonged in this perspective of the religious order. People adorned their bodies, played music, and danced, their goddess was with them, not looking down from outside their universe. The Christian God is said to have to "think" of the universe every moment or else it will disappear. That is called "God's Grace." The goddess exists because the universe exists and the universe exists because she does. Which weaves spirituality throughout our very existence. And again, that is what I am taling about when I say "we belong," rather than writing music to Jesus or Mary or God, we write it to ourselves. Since I know you like philosophy, I will take you a step further. I believe that the fact that men created science without female input (until the late 20th century) has left holes in our scientific theories. Entropy, for example, predicts the universe will dissapate into white noise, all particles spread out so thinly they will never again form galaxies, solar systems, planets, and life. Yet the universe is about 14 billion years old, according to these same scientists, and we have seen nothing but the opposite of entropy. Everything continues to become more and more ordered, new galaxies being created all the time. Where is entropy on a macro scale? I think that science was created with "masculine principles," which is our current stadard model. What was left out was the "Feminine Creative Spirit" which causes new forms that become galaxies, solar systems, and life. New scientific theories of fractals can tie life to universal mathematic formulas. I believe that the universe was programmed for life, but to infer that is to intrude god into science. And science has been trying to divorce itself from the church for hundreds of years. But I'm not talking about the church. I'm talking about science itself. And you can read real, famous physicists like Paul Davies from whom I got these theories. So, complicated as it is, hopefully I have set up a structure for spiritual music that is different than the religions we normally think of. As I read the book you suggested on the origins of thought, I am looking for some alignment with my thought. So, how does one reach that spirituality today within our given paradigm? I think a musical creator mus feel it, not on the rational level that religions are taught. Not from dogma, but from spirituality which exists in feelings, not words. And that's why music is so perfect to contain that spirituality. Music, for the most part, is not about words. It is expressed feelings. And I agree with you. When words are part of music, I don't want to know what they say. I want to hear them as instruments, part of the whole.
|
Religions are social institutions... They work as such and play their role in each culture... Attacking religions is preposterous or useless..
Mystics in all religions are often "heretics", always free individuals, sometimes imprisoned because they disturb the institution... If we speak of spiritual in music, the religions matter not so much, but the mystical insight of the musician matter... Religions is no more an obstacles than a chair... It serve a purpose sometimes well sometimes not...
The feminine and the masculine are polarities in each of us male or female... What matter is the balance... More and more woman in politics for example will not improve politics if we live in a bad political set of institutions... There exist too much example of female psychopaths, nevropaths or sociopaths in politics to disprove this point... the fact that you observe a lost of balance between the polarities by the predominant power of one over the other dont means that the feminine power will solve the problem by virtue of its nature... balance is needed thats all ...
Do you know "the master and his emissaries" of Iain McGilchrist ? He is a neuroscientist who describe the lost of balance in our civilization but not associating with male/female concerpt but with the modes of attention and their relation with the hemispherical brain... This book will be very useful for you...not as deep as Gebser but deep too ...
|
I too am talking about balance. And my point, which I have been researching for many years, is that we live in imbalance. Patriarchy. It cannot be denied. And so, yes, we must find balance. Some people have found balance even in our imbalanced world. But that does not mean that the world is balanced. Just look at it. Can you call our world a balanced world? Through history we see that people once lived differently. If you look up the dig at Catalhuyuk, Turkey, you will find a city that had no defensive walls. No weapons were found. Their "religion" had feminine and masculine deities. It is evidence that once humanity lived in a more balanced world. What I am doing is recognizing the imbalance of our world. I believe through my research that in a world in which there is no thumb on the scale of balance and imbalance, women are very strong. They were naturally the first shamans because they had insight that men did not have. They still do, but we dismiss it and squash it. The fact that there are psychopathic, sociopathic women proves nothing. Again, from research I have done, psychopaths are born with minds wired differently. Sociopaths look like psychopaths but they were not born that way. But those exceptions do not contradict what I am saying. Look at history, look at the way we live today. And yes women have also been infected by our societies. But I see much more hope and promise in them than in men. A very long topic, and I am writing a book about my beliefs. There is much, too much information for this forum. |
I will read your book .. It is evident that our social fabric is completely unbalanced..
The human social fabric is a living organism like our body... |
@audio-b-dog - I don't do operas and the only time I've seen the symphony was with Metallica at Berkeley Community Theater and with a band, at the symphony hall, doing the music of Jerry Garcia. A number of years ago I decided to take a Gideon's bible from a hotel I was staying in and I read the old and new testaments from cover to cover just to see what all the fuss was about, and that passage probably stuck in my memory more than anything else (except for all that psychedelic stuff in Revelations and the instructions for building an ark). 'Lest they become as thorns in your side'....
|
@audio-b-dog - and I believe that was when they returned to their ancestral home after wandering the desert for however long they wandered the desert for. |
To me the Bible is about everything that went wrong after the suppression of women. I've read a lot of history outside the Bible, which is not strictly history, to come to that conclusion. On the music front, It sounds like you're not a classical music guy. I'll try you on something else. This is a song written by Antonio Carlos Jobim, one of 20th century's greatest compsers, IMHO. Patricia Barber sings and also plays the piano. I think her jazz piano is excellent. |
I think we’ve gone far astray of music. If you lived close by I’d love to meet you in a coffee shop or whatever and discuss all of this. I feel bad, however, dominating this thread on music with philosophy. And I blame myself. I must not fall into the trap of talking about my overall beliefs again. I will keep my thoughts to music. I am posting Schubert’s Piano Sonata 960. It is one of his most beautiful and captivating sonatas. Schubert died at 31. He left an amazing legacy for so few years. |
If you get a chance, you might listen to Uchida playing Scuberts Impromptus, 899 is the most beautiful, but they're both beautiful. Uchida goes for nuance over power. I listened to Brendel playing them this morning because he died last month. He also goes for nuance. I'd post it on youtube but the only have her playing one movement at a time. Religion is filled with dogma, much of it I don't like. Spirituality has no dogma. It is simply a person getting in touch with their connection to the universe, or god, or goddess, or whatever word we want to put on it. In writing @mahgister I discovered the thought "I belong" or "we belong." I'll have to mull over which works better. I was listening to Monteverdi yesterday. I didn't like his madigrals from book 8 but I did like a long piece very much. I think it was something about the creation. |
Monteverdi as Gesualdo as Scriabin are not something we catch on the spot ... They are an acquired taste even for those who liked them at first listening... They are expressive artists on a high level, Gesualdo is almost more "modern" than most classical composer in the 20 th century...
|
Thanks for the recommendation. I have a disc of Uchida playing Debussy. As far as spirituality goes, a fairly common hurdle for many of us appears to be our conditioned conceptions of the Divine and awakening. Don Juan constantly challenged Castaneda’s rigid assumptions and expectations. Bulent Rauf did the same with Reshad Feild. So it could be said each of us has our own "personal dogma". ;o) |
I have that disk of Uchida playing Debussy’s Etudes, and so far I haven’t been able to get into them. They have no lyrical quality I can hang onto. Perhaps they’re too complex for me. I love all other piano music by him that I’ve heard, and I’ve heard a lot. I have a lot of people playing him. My favorite is an old album of Phillipe Entremont playing various pieces. Entremont is probably not an "exacting" interpreter because he never gets mentioned in online posts. He is very lyrical, and even if he is a bit schmultzy, I like him. I particlarly like Debussy’s Images, both for the piano and orchestra. As far as spirituality goes, I think I’m going to be on an island by myself. From various pieces of research which do not directly relate to one another, I am piecing together a spirituality around the feminine and masculine. I do not consider myself a particularly spiritual person, but perhaps I’m not evaluating myself correctly. In the youtube post below, there is a picture of the album I like with Entremont playing "Claire de Lune." |
I love them all ... but i am very picky about interpretation...
If i compute my listenings, i had my version of my beloved 8th book for 50 years now... Then i had listend to it more than 500 times... In this book i was in love with a czech interpretation against all italian odds... Prague madrigalist with Venhoda... He infuse a dynamic which makes each short piece an operatic drama not just a poem... it is a living interpretation not a static one... i cannot live without it... All other interpretation so sophisticated they are, and italian interpretation are very good indeed but fail to transport me as much as Venhoda... Save Michel Corboz a Swiss maestro i like very much but i had lost my few albums without bein able to own them again ...
I recommend also Gesualdo the supreme master of the madrigals in his classical form so to speak, because Monteverdi goes toward opera quitting poetic declamation of each words as did Gesualdo who sound more contemporary than many modern composer... He was a Prince who killed his wife and his lover and pass the rest of his life tormented by remorse and created such deep vibrant music nothing ever written compare ... here i recommend the transcendant version of Quintetto vocale italiano ...Stunning nothing compare... https://www.amazon.ca/Gesualdo-Madrigals-Voices-Books-Complete/dp/B0085AXU4A |
I will look for Bavouzet on Qobuz. I didn't think that you were espousing anything. It is almost impossible for me to explain what I now see. In the book @mahgister told me about, the author talks about perspectives which he sees through art. For example, he says that people could not see depth perspective until the Renaissance with Leonardo and others. I am viewing the world through a perspective that others do not see and find hard to accept. So, I have a big job on my hands. I will look for those recordings of Monteverdi on Qobuz. |
I've been listening to Bavouzet play Debussy. I like him a lot. I had not heard of him when I was in my Debussy collecting days. He's as good as anyone else I've heard. I'm posting Bartoks's Piano Concerto #3. There were a lot of choices, but I took an old one: Geza Anda and Frenec Fricsay. I have them playing a number of pieces together because I bought a box set of Frenec Fricsay who is an excellent conductor, but a bit early for our time. I wanted to see if you could bend your ear to Bartok. |
For Debussy i never pay any attention to him... Till i listened him played by "the pianist of pianists" Ivan Moravec ...Then i understood... Listen to "feux d’artifice" by Bavouzet and then Moravec and pick the one who moves you... For me it is Moravec... I could have use a concert version of Bavouzet but it does not compare to his recorded version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iKkk_wIdn4&list=RD7iKkk_wIdn4&start_radio=1
Now listen to the master of colors and fluidity Moravec , the first 4 minutes of this short Debussy album for "feux d’artifices" hear how his interpretation tell a story :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgsI4nvtPB4&list=RDwgsI4nvtPB4&start_radio=1
Now we can listen to a "formally" perfect version by a out of this world virtuoso, Hamelin, but this version so perfect it is and it is, dont moves me the way the more poetical version of Moravec who sing more impress me as more than plastically perfect ( Moravec is one of my pianist god, Hamelin impress me but is not) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym1B9_vWwZ0
now we can take "Pagodes" of Debussy and compare Bavouzet with Moravec... With which onbe do you see the pagode ?
Bavouzet :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUlG8AFpJM&list=RDzaUlG8AFpJM&start_radio=1
Moravec : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqlKzqTmFI&list=RDNTqlKzqTmFI&start_radio=1
|
My favorite piece of Debussy was the first i heard by Moravec: "la cathédrale engloutie"... I was stunned... I was able to see the cathédrale emerging from the ocean deep sans : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlDyXZ74kf0&list=RDPlDyXZ74kf0&start_radio=1
Now compare with Bavouzet : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwELlJyVEhc&list=RDfwELlJyVEhc&start_radio=1
|
Fascinating! Moravec wins in my opinion. But I will post Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli who is mentioned as the best Debussy interpreter on almost every forum I have looked at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsdIkUSjXv8 And now my previous favorite Phillipe Entremont: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=895XJSyyrEs Overall, I would say Moravec for power, Michelangeli for precision, Entremont for lyricism, and Bavouzet for being laid back. That’s after one listening, though. I heard Bavouzet today, I know Entremont and Michelangeli well, I would like to hear more of Moravec. Perhaps tomorrow. Feux d'Artifice Michelangeli https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSgVktjd4g Entremont Feux d'artifice |
What you call power , i call expression; and expressive power is the main thing in playing as "timbre perception" is the main thing in audio, not details perception promoted by sellers ignoring acoustics...I dont want to taste music i want to be possessed by it... I like Scriabin because almost no pianist nevermind most virtuoso are unable to play him at all ...Scriabin is a God beside Bach, Mozart Beethoven Josquin Des Prez and some others as Liszt whom almost no pianist could play really too ...
MIchelangeli is "perfect" like Hamelin is...But i want to be moved not just esthetically pleased...I want a pianist who tell me a story whose images i can see like in a movie...Moravec do so more than anyone here and he can makes "feux d’artifice" speaks and sings not only be seen ...try his Chopin nocturnes... Only Rubinstein rival him in fluid expression they are my Chopin choices... Perfection is often only a flattening of the necessary imperfection, a flat wall with no movie.A dripping mountain eroded to be a dry plain.
"Imperfection is the peak" René Char
The same is true if we compare Michelangeli with Moravec in the "cathédrale engloutie", here note the "pulse" the internal rythm in Moravec 3-D playing as if it was a song and a movie: Moravec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlDyXZ74kf0&list=RDPlDyXZ74kf0&start_radio=1 Michelangeli https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsdIkUSjXv8
Musical time is not linear, it cannot be measured but only felt as a singing and spoken quality or as a walking abyss, the perfect note one after the other dont make music...I learn this listening Furtwangler...Unparallel maestro ...Try Schumann fourth symphony, a radiography of Schumann soul , perhaps one greatest album ever recorded beside few others. |
Let me be clear, I did not consciously choose to only like music with the attributes I listed previously. I didn't create that list with intent to only only listen to music with those attributes. I just noticed over time, that music that did not have most or all of those attributes became less and less interesting to me, and my tastes and search for new music kept heading toward those attributes. I have several recordings by Szymanowski that I like quite a bit. Those criteria I previously mentioned: Those criteria being (no particular order): very high level of musicianship, deep and broad levels of emotional and/or intellectual content conveyed, fairly high levels of complexity and sophistication, (usually) long form song structure that goes through changes in: mood, intensity, tempo, dynamics, time changes, etc., over its length. |
I like a lot Sorabji madness played by Ogdon (almost mad himself but a formidable pianist in Busoni too) I own many Sorabji music...pure genius and total madness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrAewTxBrc&list=RD_OrAewTxBrc&start_radio=1
The transcendental studies is incredible too by Ullen :
But so much i admire Sorabji and i like him a lot, he does not moves me at all...like Scriabin or Liszt well played (which is almost impossible by most pianists) Music is not just creative esthetical research, it is a spiritual spell...
If i listen Gesualdo well interpreted madrigals i dont even note that his music has more than 500 years old... It moves us because it is not only inventive but rooted in the heart...
|
Those composers you mention, are not boring to me based on the attributes I previously mentioned. They are boring to me because they do nothing for my personal artistic sensibilities.
For me also, there no relationship between genius and chronolectal time. I am able to fully admit, that: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, the composers you mentioned above, and many others of similar periods, were probably geniuses. That doesn’t change the fact that I am mostly unmoved by their music. I have no problems understanding their: contributions to music, their innovations, their skill, their knowledge of theory, etc, without actually enjoying their music. In fact, I will go one step further; I can listen to their music, and even hear what others: find so appealing, are moved by, what they hear and interpret as beauty, etc. But I always feel like I am removed from it, emotionally and/or intellectually speaking. When I listen to music by those composers, I can’t help but think to myself, "Oh, this is the part where the composer is trying to elicit feelings of awe, here’s the part where the composer is trying to create tension, this is the part where the composer is trying create a pastoral atmosphere, here’s the part where the composer is trying to create excitement, etc". But despite hearing what the composer is going for, it doesn’t reach into me and actually create those feelings within me. |
