Glad you don't belong to any 'isms' (some interesting exchanges in that flow of comments!). What really gladdens my heart is your roundedness and balance and openness. There are many pedants in the world of music; indeed, in every sphere of life we encounter those who are certain they know it all better than anyone else. It makes for great entertainment. I think you are a superstar, Dr Anderson, because you possess great intellect, mastery of technique and genuine compassion - which exudes in every performance you joyously share with us. These qualities make you an extraordinary musician and a most engaging personality. That you enrich the lives of others is a real blessing in a world where most are just takers, and giving seems sadly unfashionable. Bravo, Cole Anderson!
Thankyou. I really appreciate your comments. I'm so glad to be able to support your channel and have access to such an open and dedicated classroom!!!!
Great video! Your last section talking about program music was particularly thought provoking for me. As a composer, I often find having a program to be a sort of "second step" after starting the material for a work, to develop a sense of form and tone, but the process of actually finishing a piece almost always distorts that original concept beyond recognition. It's helpful (for me at least), but it also makes it really tricky to write program notes or talk to performers about a piece- the program is always present and relevant to the music, but it also feels a little bit reductive or misleading. I have to wonder if this is why so many other historical composers seem to have "secret programs" to works, I might be projecting though!
Thanks for such a lively discussion. I also love the Mikrokosmos. I was raised on them and have always loved them. And I agree with you opinion regarding those deadly static etudes.
Agreed about Bartok Mikrokosmos (32:40), I studied the Dances in Bulgarian Rhythm from book 6 over the past year, it was my first deep dive into Bartok, and I feel it brought me to a new land of musical and pianistic understanding. I recorded all six - is here on my YT channel.
Musically, Paderewski's recording--or at least the one I'll paste here from another YT video--of the "Revolutionary" Etude is wonderfully dramatic. A lot of "oomph" and with great attention paid to the dramatic utterances in the right hand. Oftentimes, it seems to me that not enough attention is given to the right hand in that Etude, with pianists concentrating more perhaps on showing off their fingers in the left hand's zooming notes. But for me, the right hand is critically important in this work, and Paderewski brings out the fury of the right hand declamations in a full-blooded way. I also love his original composition "Nocturne," which I only first heard in a CD by Stephen Hough years ago. (Along with "Melodie," by Gabrilowitsch, another gorgeous piece that I'd never heard prior to hearing that "My Favorite Things" CD by Mr. Hough. A highly recommended CD, if you don't already have it in your collection!) Almost forgot: here's a link to a TH-cam video of Paderewski playing our beloved Op. 10 no. 12 Etude: th-cam.com/video/cCeg4d1ec5U/w-d-xo.html&start_radio=1
Rosenthal playing the Chopin Double Thirds at a concert. One of the chromatic scales in thirds did not come out well. At the end Hofmann congratulated on the performance and did not say anything about the mistake. Same Lhevinne...but when it was Godowsky's turn he said: "What happened at that point?" And Rosenthal: "I had to change fingering since Paderewski was in the audience and he would have stolen it!" :-)
Well that was fun! “What is music?” Is a tough one ! I quite enjoyed Bernstein’s lectures on this topic, where he tried to stitch together theories from other creative contexts into a musical whole. I think the end result didn’t really hold together (and of course he copped plenty of flak from the establishment) but I found it a brave attempt and an interesting exercise Are there absolutes in music ? Yes I think there are, but they are personal absolutes. As you say, the interesting part of it is to answer why you respond positively or negatively to something and it is always multi factorial I strongly dislike much of what Nyiregyházi does and I know why ! Its usually easier to work out what you don’t like rather than what you do like
I largely liked your response regarding Nyiregyhazi on Vallee d'Obermann on 16:54, and definitely see what you're arguing for-music usually has some sort of superimposition on it from the composer-however this ironically tends to ignore the tradition of the composers of the Romantic period anyways. Liszt gave permission to Siloti to change "Un Sospiro" substantially, August Stradal significantly changed the first movement of the Vivaldi/Bach Organ Concerto BWV 596, and certainly both Liszt and Anton Rubinstein were guilty of changing other composers' works, as well as their own works! I'm not saying Nyiregyhazi was the perfect embodiment of the Romantic tradition, though his transcription of "Warum?" (Op. 6 No. 5) by Tchaikovsky (which I had once recommended to you by email long ago), is-but I do think Nyiregyhazi did have clear ideas on what he wanted to execute in Vallee d'Obermann, but may have not had the form to do so. For me, I prefer the recordings of Hofmann, Bolet and Godowsky above all-because they embodied the spirit of "changing music in the style of the composer". They all sometimes changed music around but always did so with the style of the composer in mind. What are your thoughts on subtler changes to the text in music, like many pianists who sometimes double bass notes in Liszt's Sonetto 104, or Horowitz changing flats to naturals in a scalular passage in Clementi's sonata in C major Op. 33 no. 3? Perhaps that's for another Q&A-but that's up to you!
The interesting thing about the whole romantic tradition of composer performers is that there are an equal number of examples of someone like Liszt deriding performances that violated the spirit of the composer’s vision by excessive variance from the printed score: Whether that was through changing notes, inappropriate tempi, or what have you. It was always the interior meaning that was most important. So alterations are really only useful to the extent that they reveal and don't obscure this inner meaning-at least in the most beautiful music. But, sometimes there are multiple ways an idea can be expressed beautifully... Just to clarify, I’m not actually arguing for one viewpoint over another, only that you don’t have to change around notes and so forth in order to be provocative and original. Going back to Liszt, it was (partly) his very faithfulness to the score that made his performance of the Hammerklavier sonata so remarkable in it’s time-simply the fact that he took it so seriously as a work of art. It’s definitely a subject I’d like to touch on more! Also, I do need to apologize for never getting back to you about that recording. I think I never quite had a chance to put my thoughts in order and I didn’t want to offend by writing glibly. There were a few aspects of that recording I really liked and many I really didn’t like at all, so maybe I’ll talk about that sometime! Thank you for pointing me towards it at any rate and for your comment.
@@TheIndependentPianist Liszt's insistence on keeping faithful to the score came only after and perhaps in reaction against his own youthful excesses. The famous account of his Hammerklavier performance, by Berlioz, says that in his earlier super-virtuoso period the criticism was justified that he added all sorts of unnecessary embellishments to the works of other composers.
On the topic of Paderewski - he was a truly exceptional composer! Many absolutely gorgeous short pieces and a wonderful A minor concerto that was one of the first to be recorded among Hyperion's great Romantic Piano Concerto series. I do enjoy his playing but I admire him even more for his composing.
I really enjoyed it. Plenty to think about here. When it comes to Paderewski I prefer his style as it informs us of the era of which he played. For decades in the 20th century Romantic composers were shunned. Everything seemed to be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. Liszt was somewhat looked down upon. Schubert wasn't played much before 1960. How sad. Artists were criticized for taking minor liberties e.g. breaking of the hands or adding a note here or there. I'm so happy that's not the case today. The older I get the more I find "cookie cutter" renditions uninteresting. I want to hear a musician that has something to say. I may not prefer it but that's fine with me.
great. You also said that Schubert's d 960 mvmnt 1 is best played slow like Richter. However Andras Schiff says that Richter had a faulty score and that he plays it too slow.
@@militaryandemergencyservic3286 I don’t think I actually said that D960 is best played slowly, although I do find Richter’s interpretation to be very mesmerizing. I’ve always played it a little faster myself. Regarding what Schiff said about Richter’s score, I do think that’s a very interesting idea. As I understand it that edition had written out 32nd notes for the opening trill. Actually, I highly doubt that’s the reason Richter played it so slowly! He took a similarly slow tempo in the first mvt of the G major Sonata (also Molto moderato), with no similar excuse. I think it was really his interpretation of that tempo indication.
Regarding Chopin's Op. 9 #2 I find Hoffman's somewhat improvisatory interpretation to be refreshing. What is your take on the spelled out embellishments in Paderewski's commentary for this Nocturne? (page 110 of his edition)
@@ddgyt50 I assume you are referring to the additional ornaments found in certain manuscripts? I think they’re quite good if convincingly played-I’m not sure if the jury is in yet as to whether or not Chopin is the source for them or not, but either way they are definitely effective!
Mr. Anderson, as a wonderful pianist yourself maybe you will help me with advice. I am a self taught pianist and I've been playing the piano for some years. I study 90 minutes a day, 5 times/week. The greatest advanced piece I conquered is au bord d'une source (you know it well) that I can play to an average level. I plateaued after au bord, and wanted to take my skill to another level so I decided to challenge myself taking what for me is the ultimate piece and greatest ouvre ever written for piano (and any instrument): Reminiscenses de Lucrezia Borgia, part II (chanson a boire). But I am still just a self taught dude who struggled to learn au bord. Do you think it is feasible to learn Chanson a boire with 2 hours a day, for a year or so?
Wow! That is a very ambitious leap in difficulty. Far be it from me to tell you that you couldn't do it, but... If you struggled to learn au bord, perhaps first choosing something in which the technical difficulty is a little less egregious and more seamlessly connected to the musical idea might be more fulfilling for you. There are Liszt's later operatic fantasies, like the Gounod Faust Waltz, which are much more approachable and actually sound harder than they are. Nonetheless you would learn a lot from a piece like that as well. Or why not one of his original masterworks? Pieces like the Ballade in B minor (which I just posted), cause you to grow as a musician apace with your technical development. There are many more pieces like that from Liszt, in which the technique is a little more sensibly (for want of a better term) conceived. Fantasy and Fugue on BACH, the Weinen Klagen variations, Orage and Vallée d'Obermann, Dante Sonata, even the Sonata in B minor, are a few things that come to mind that would be great fun to play and very challenging, but far more doable than Lucrezia. I kind of feel like those super elaborate fantasies are best played by an experienced virtuoso, as it requires an extreme level of skill to transcend the kinds of punishing difficulty that all of those 1830-1850 pianists were writing into their biggest fantasies.
@@TheIndependentPianist i appreciate very much your time and your answer, much appreciated friend, and you are obviously right. Yet I already put 20 sessions into chanson a boire. I naturally can't play anything from it, but just reading it and seeing some of the arrangements was very enriching. Other pieces indeed look like child play and suddenly au bord is not daunting in the least. It also has such stretches and huge jumps that is its kind of like a gym. I probably will never be able to conquer that piece, but it engaged my brain like no other and it made the sessions actually fun. I also have been spending some time with Liszts etudes techniques pour le piano. I believe this challenge is making me grow as an amateur pianist. But yes, after some time when I get nowhere and the fun stops I will probably abandon it and go back some levels. Will listen to all the pieces you mentioned, thank you very much. And one last thing: I think you are good enough, and you could indeed conquer it and post the first live video on that great piece. Wouldn't it be amazing? Thanks a lot friend, best regards,
I recommend hearing Horowitz play Scarlatti, Mozart, Haydn, or Clementi, and Cziffra's playing of various Baroque and non-virtuoso music: Couperin, Grieg, Schumann and the like. Then you hear quite a different side to them. And for Paderewski... well I will go into more depth on him at a later date 🙂
Regarding your response to my "violent" comment: Obviously you are entirely a child of your so wonderfully blessed time - in this case specifically the aspect of postmodernism, or the consequences thereof. In the highly influential philosophy of postmodernism - as one typical characteristic - objectivity is questioned and the focus is on subjectivity. (And as a result, even any kind of perversion is morally justified.) What this essentially and generally amounts to is nothing less than: everyone is right. (Ain't that a brave new world?) And I would like to add: One consequence of this is that in our time it is now often even judged as "arrogant" to claim any truths. That's the spirit of postmodernism, which dissolves everything - nihilistic and absurd as it is. (And it's part of today's self-righteousness of man without God, simply destructive and a sign of decay) And that is an objective fact that has to be stated so clearly (not "violently").
@@germanchris4440 hmmmm, you don’t think calling Hofmann’s interpretation “disgusting” qualifies as a fairly violent response? Oh well, we might just have different standards here. To be perfectly honest I don’t really understand the whole postmodernist thing you’re going into. It’s not something I know a lot about and I don’t identify myself as a postmodernist (or with any other “ism”). I noticed that you didn’t answer my counter question from the video, namely, why is it that you view that particular musical example as disgusting? Being as precise as possible, of course. I’m assuming you’ll have a fun time with that question, and I’m curious to see if it even goes remotely in the direction I would expect!
@germanchris4440 You are about 140 years behind Joris-Karl Huysmans on this topic. Durtal’s aesthetic preoccupation with religious art becomes an impassioned interest in the numinous at the cost of his refined taste in modern creative artifice. At some point, Durtal’s obsession with metaphysical art becomes more ceremonial than intellectual. In this sense, art conservatism can quickly become regressive to intellectual progress, because it cannot express why new standards affect the past in a meaningful way. Calling the Nocturnes disgusting without explanation (substituting a circumlocutory rant), is a regressive and irregular response to aesthetic discussions. Without a significant purpose or clear explanation provided, calling the Nocturnes disgusting reads as a “superstitions” assertion. Please explain that judgement succinctly.
@@TheIndependentPianistIt's part of the problem that people have no idea which agendas they are influenced by (which is particularly critical in our days). I reject artificial human categorizations too, but one should not ignore the "isms" by which society is shaped. Today more than ever, people are downright programmed and usually have no idea why they think the way they do. But it is remarkable that today people believe to be individual thinkers, even though almost all of them think the same thing - namely perspectives that are extremely different or even opposite from what was a normal and healthy way of seeing things for their ancestors. That's why it also makes me extremely uncomfortable when distinctive personalities like Rachmaninoff, (remarkable human personalities, a kind that no longer exists today) now become the subject of today's prevailing perspectives; he would have been better forgotten.
@@germanchris4440 Well I think I more or less know what is generally meant by postmodernism, but I also usually find that these terms tend to morph into quite different meanings depending on who is using them. So, for instance, I didn't quite understand why you were deriding postmodernism and subjectivity, while at the same time elevating an emotional (or subjective) response (disgust) to the level of objective fact. Then you also say that remarkable human personalities like Rachmaninoff's no longer exist today. That feels distinctly like "golden age" thinking to me, of which I am quite wary-and again, a very subjective kind of viewpoint. But honestly I'm quite willing to ignore all of that, because I'm not primarily concerned with pure philosophical debate. So my question remains open, should you choose to answer it: why, precisely, do you have this emotional reaction of disgust towards Hofmann's Chopin Nocturne? I'm not even trying to suggest that it is an incorrect reaction to have, I'd just be curious to learn why. Or perhaps I'm just being too tolerant and considerate of your point of view ;-)
@@TheIndependentPianist One last brief answer on that, if you allow: You see, this is how people get into philosophizing today, which leads nowhere and is actually also completely unnecessary - because naturally it is clear when something is inappropriate, perverting, ugly or the like. But there has just been a general kind of dissolution in evaluation and perception, and now everything is just a matter of taste, and so on. This is also the end of common sense - and all of this is part of the definition of "postmodernism", as fuzzy as philosophies are. Categorizations have their vagueness and are ultimately confusing, philosophy leads to nothing, it is the work of man and therefore always imperfect. But unfortunately, we are dealing with the implementation and, to a large extent, the realization of such concepts in this world. And there is fundamental agreement on certain key characteristics, and the disintegrating effect described above, which can be observed everywhere today, is one of them: no more truth, everything is subjective, everything is permitted; then there is the ideological insanity of "equality" everywhere ... The so-called "Generation Z" is the biggest victim of this more than regrettable, deliberate development I'll leave it at that, enough said. Except this - and that's a matter of free will: Come to God through the one who is the ultimate truth (reality and not a religion): the Lord Jesus Christ, while there is still time! We all have a sin problem with God, and times are getting much worse soon. It's all written ... Best regards and all the best to you!
Thanks for wonderful discussions here ! Also enjoyed reading comments from other listeners!! Hope you keep posting great videos !!
Glad you don't belong to any 'isms' (some interesting exchanges in that flow of comments!). What really gladdens my heart is your roundedness and balance and openness. There are many pedants in the world of music; indeed, in every sphere of life we encounter those who are certain they know it all better than anyone else. It makes for great entertainment. I think you are a superstar, Dr Anderson, because you possess great intellect, mastery of technique and genuine compassion - which exudes in every performance you joyously share with us. These qualities make you an extraordinary musician and a most engaging personality. That you enrich the lives of others is a real blessing in a world where most are just takers, and giving seems sadly unfashionable. Bravo, Cole Anderson!
Thankyou. I really appreciate your comments. I'm so glad to be able to support your channel and have access to such an open and dedicated classroom!!!!
Great video! Your last section talking about program music was particularly thought provoking for me. As a composer, I often find having a program to be a sort of "second step" after starting the material for a work, to develop a sense of form and tone, but the process of actually finishing a piece almost always distorts that original concept beyond recognition. It's helpful (for me at least), but it also makes it really tricky to write program notes or talk to performers about a piece- the program is always present and relevant to the music, but it also feels a little bit reductive or misleading. I have to wonder if this is why so many other historical composers seem to have "secret programs" to works, I might be projecting though!
If you do a Paderewski program, feature his Leggierezza etude. The leggiero pianissimmo playing there is marvelous.
Thanks for such a lively discussion. I also love the Mikrokosmos. I was raised on them and have always loved them. And I agree with you opinion regarding those deadly static etudes.
I enjoyed these topics very much! Wonderful video!
Agreed about Bartok Mikrokosmos (32:40), I studied the Dances in Bulgarian Rhythm from book 6 over the past year, it was my first deep dive into Bartok, and I feel it brought me to a new land of musical and pianistic understanding. I recorded all six - is here on my YT channel.
“How Mr. Anderson, how, how, how do you do it ?”
Musically, Paderewski's recording--or at least the one I'll paste here from another YT video--of the "Revolutionary" Etude is wonderfully dramatic. A lot of "oomph" and with great attention paid to the dramatic utterances in the right hand. Oftentimes, it seems to me that not enough attention is given to the right hand in that Etude, with pianists concentrating more perhaps on showing off their fingers in the left hand's zooming notes. But for me, the right hand is critically important in this work, and Paderewski brings out the fury of the right hand declamations in a full-blooded way.
I also love his original composition "Nocturne," which I only first heard in a CD by Stephen Hough years ago. (Along with "Melodie," by Gabrilowitsch, another gorgeous piece that I'd never heard prior to hearing that "My Favorite Things" CD by Mr. Hough. A highly recommended CD, if you don't already have it in your collection!) Almost forgot: here's a link to a TH-cam video of Paderewski playing our beloved Op. 10 no. 12 Etude: th-cam.com/video/cCeg4d1ec5U/w-d-xo.html&start_radio=1
Rosenthal playing the Chopin Double Thirds at a concert. One of the chromatic scales in thirds did not come out well. At the end Hofmann congratulated on the performance and did not say anything about the mistake.
Same Lhevinne...but when it was Godowsky's turn he said: "What happened at that point?" And Rosenthal: "I had to change fingering since Paderewski was in the audience and he would have stolen it!" :-)
Well that was fun! “What is music?” Is a tough one ! I quite enjoyed Bernstein’s lectures on this topic, where he tried to stitch together theories from other creative contexts into a musical whole. I think the end result didn’t really hold together (and of course he copped plenty of flak from the establishment) but I found it a brave attempt and an interesting exercise
Are there absolutes in music ? Yes I think there are, but they are personal absolutes. As you say, the interesting part of it is to answer why you respond positively or negatively to something and it is always multi factorial
I strongly dislike much of what Nyiregyházi does and I know why !
Its usually easier to work out what you don’t like rather than what you do like
Hey, do you think you could do a video on Chopin etude 10 no 5?
@@MRulli427 yes! Actively practicing that very piece as a matter of fact, and almost ready to record it.
I largely liked your response regarding Nyiregyhazi on Vallee d'Obermann on 16:54, and definitely see what you're arguing for-music usually has some sort of superimposition on it from the composer-however this ironically tends to ignore the tradition of the composers of the Romantic period anyways.
Liszt gave permission to Siloti to change "Un Sospiro" substantially, August Stradal significantly changed the first movement of the Vivaldi/Bach Organ Concerto BWV 596, and certainly both Liszt and Anton Rubinstein were guilty of changing other composers' works, as well as their own works! I'm not saying Nyiregyhazi was the perfect embodiment of the Romantic tradition, though his transcription of "Warum?" (Op. 6 No. 5) by Tchaikovsky (which I had once recommended to you by email long ago), is-but I do think Nyiregyhazi did have clear ideas on what he wanted to execute in Vallee d'Obermann, but may have not had the form to do so. For me, I prefer the recordings of Hofmann, Bolet and Godowsky above all-because they embodied the spirit of "changing music in the style of the composer". They all sometimes changed music around but always did so with the style of the composer in mind. What are your thoughts on subtler changes to the text in music, like many pianists who sometimes double bass notes in Liszt's Sonetto 104, or Horowitz changing flats to naturals in a scalular passage in Clementi's sonata in C major Op. 33 no. 3? Perhaps that's for another Q&A-but that's up to you!
The interesting thing about the whole romantic tradition of composer performers is that there are an equal number of examples of someone like Liszt deriding performances that violated the spirit of the composer’s vision by excessive variance from the printed score: Whether that was through changing notes, inappropriate tempi, or what have you. It was always the interior meaning that was most important. So alterations are really only useful to the extent that they reveal and don't obscure this inner meaning-at least in the most beautiful music. But, sometimes there are multiple ways an idea can be expressed beautifully...
Just to clarify, I’m not actually arguing for one viewpoint over another, only that you don’t have to change around notes and so forth in order to be provocative and original. Going back to Liszt, it was (partly) his very faithfulness to the score that made his performance of the Hammerklavier sonata so remarkable in it’s time-simply the fact that he took it so seriously as a work of art.
It’s definitely a subject I’d like to touch on more!
Also, I do need to apologize for never getting back to you about that recording. I think I never quite had a chance to put my thoughts in order and I didn’t want to offend by writing glibly. There were a few aspects of that recording I really liked and many I really didn’t like at all, so maybe I’ll talk about that sometime! Thank you for pointing me towards it at any rate and for your comment.
@@TheIndependentPianist Liszt's insistence on keeping faithful to the score came only after and perhaps in reaction against his own youthful excesses. The famous account of his Hammerklavier performance, by Berlioz, says that in his earlier super-virtuoso period the criticism was justified that he added all sorts of unnecessary embellishments to the works of other composers.
On the topic of Paderewski - he was a truly exceptional composer! Many absolutely gorgeous short pieces and a wonderful A minor concerto that was one of the first to be recorded among Hyperion's great Romantic Piano Concerto series.
I do enjoy his playing but I admire him even more for his composing.
Great point! Paderewski the composer is certainly in need of some exploration.
I really enjoyed it. Plenty to think about here. When it comes to Paderewski I prefer his style as it informs us of the era of which he played. For decades in the 20th century Romantic composers were shunned. Everything seemed to be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. Liszt was somewhat looked down upon. Schubert wasn't played much before 1960. How sad. Artists were criticized for taking minor liberties e.g. breaking of the hands or adding a note here or there. I'm so happy that's not the case today. The older I get the more I find "cookie cutter" renditions uninteresting. I want to hear a musician that has something to say. I may not prefer it but that's fine with me.
great. You also said that Schubert's d 960 mvmnt 1 is best played slow like Richter. However Andras Schiff says that Richter had a faulty score and that he plays it too slow.
@@militaryandemergencyservic3286 I don’t think I actually said that D960 is best played slowly, although I do find Richter’s interpretation to be very mesmerizing. I’ve always played it a little faster myself. Regarding what Schiff said about Richter’s score, I do think that’s a very interesting idea. As I understand it that edition had written out 32nd notes for the opening trill. Actually, I highly doubt that’s the reason Richter played it so slowly! He took a similarly slow tempo in the first mvt of the G major Sonata (also Molto moderato), with no similar excuse. I think it was really his interpretation of that tempo indication.
@@TheIndependentPianist yeah - i actually agree with you.
Regarding Chopin's Op. 9 #2 I find Hoffman's somewhat improvisatory interpretation to be refreshing. What is your take on the spelled out embellishments in Paderewski's commentary for this Nocturne? (page 110 of his edition)
@@ddgyt50 I assume you are referring to the additional ornaments found in certain manuscripts? I think they’re quite good if convincingly played-I’m not sure if the jury is in yet as to whether or not Chopin is the source for them or not, but either way they are definitely effective!
Mr. Anderson, as a wonderful pianist yourself maybe you will help me with advice. I am a self taught pianist and I've been playing the piano for some years. I study 90 minutes a day, 5 times/week. The greatest advanced piece I conquered is au bord d'une source (you know it well) that I can play to an average level. I plateaued after au bord, and wanted to take my skill to another level so I decided to challenge myself taking what for me is the ultimate piece and greatest ouvre ever written for piano (and any instrument): Reminiscenses de Lucrezia Borgia, part II (chanson a boire). But I am still just a self taught dude who struggled to learn au bord. Do you think it is feasible to learn Chanson a boire with 2 hours a day, for a year or so?
Wow! That is a very ambitious leap in difficulty. Far be it from me to tell you that you couldn't do it, but... If you struggled to learn au bord, perhaps first choosing something in which the technical difficulty is a little less egregious and more seamlessly connected to the musical idea might be more fulfilling for you. There are Liszt's later operatic fantasies, like the Gounod Faust Waltz, which are much more approachable and actually sound harder than they are. Nonetheless you would learn a lot from a piece like that as well.
Or why not one of his original masterworks? Pieces like the Ballade in B minor (which I just posted), cause you to grow as a musician apace with your technical development. There are many more pieces like that from Liszt, in which the technique is a little more sensibly (for want of a better term) conceived. Fantasy and Fugue on BACH, the Weinen Klagen variations, Orage and Vallée d'Obermann, Dante Sonata, even the Sonata in B minor, are a few things that come to mind that would be great fun to play and very challenging, but far more doable than Lucrezia.
I kind of feel like those super elaborate fantasies are best played by an experienced virtuoso, as it requires an extreme level of skill to transcend the kinds of punishing difficulty that all of those 1830-1850 pianists were writing into their biggest fantasies.
@@TheIndependentPianist i appreciate very much your time and your answer, much appreciated friend, and you are obviously right. Yet I already put 20 sessions into chanson a boire. I naturally can't play anything from it, but just reading it and seeing some of the arrangements was very enriching. Other pieces indeed look like child play and suddenly au bord is not daunting in the least. It also has such stretches and huge jumps that is its kind of like a gym. I probably will never be able to conquer that piece, but it engaged my brain like no other and it made the sessions actually fun. I also have been spending some time with Liszts etudes techniques pour le piano. I believe this challenge is making me grow as an amateur pianist. But yes, after some time when I get nowhere and the fun stops I will probably abandon it and go back some levels. Will listen to all the pieces you mentioned, thank you very much. And one last thing: I think you are good enough, and you could indeed conquer it and post the first live video on that great piece. Wouldn't it be amazing? Thanks a lot friend, best regards,
Hi Cole could you say some words about.Joseph lhevinne please
Paderewski is quite awful. Very affected.. A few have like Horowitz and Cziffra. They may have a certain technique but it's aimed at showmanship
Ironic you claiming they played for attention when your comment was clearly written for attention. 😂 You're quite the showman yourself.
I recommend hearing Horowitz play Scarlatti, Mozart, Haydn, or Clementi, and Cziffra's playing of various Baroque and non-virtuoso music: Couperin, Grieg, Schumann and the like. Then you hear quite a different side to them. And for Paderewski... well I will go into more depth on him at a later date 🙂
Regarding your response to my "violent" comment:
Obviously you are entirely a child of your so wonderfully blessed time - in this case specifically the aspect of postmodernism, or the consequences thereof. In the highly influential philosophy of postmodernism - as one typical characteristic - objectivity is questioned and the focus is on subjectivity. (And as a result, even any kind of perversion is morally justified.)
What this essentially and generally amounts to is nothing less than: everyone is right. (Ain't that a brave new world?)
And I would like to add: One consequence of this is that in our time it is now often even judged as "arrogant" to claim any truths.
That's the spirit of postmodernism, which dissolves everything - nihilistic and absurd as it is. (And it's part of today's self-righteousness of man without God, simply destructive and a sign of decay)
And that is an objective fact that has to be stated so clearly (not "violently").
@@germanchris4440 hmmmm, you don’t think calling Hofmann’s interpretation “disgusting” qualifies as a fairly violent response? Oh well, we might just have different standards here. To be perfectly honest I don’t really understand the whole postmodernist thing you’re going into. It’s not something I know a lot about and I don’t identify myself as a postmodernist (or with any other “ism”).
I noticed that you didn’t answer my counter question from the video, namely, why is it that you view that particular musical example as disgusting? Being as precise as possible, of course. I’m assuming you’ll have a fun time with that question, and I’m curious to see if it even goes remotely in the direction I would expect!
@germanchris4440 You are about 140 years behind Joris-Karl Huysmans on this topic. Durtal’s aesthetic preoccupation with religious art becomes an impassioned interest in the numinous at the cost of his refined taste in modern creative artifice. At some point, Durtal’s obsession with metaphysical art becomes more ceremonial than intellectual. In this sense, art conservatism can quickly become regressive to intellectual progress, because it cannot express why new standards affect the past in a meaningful way. Calling the Nocturnes disgusting without explanation (substituting a circumlocutory rant), is a regressive and irregular response to aesthetic discussions. Without a significant purpose or clear explanation provided, calling the Nocturnes disgusting reads as a “superstitions” assertion. Please explain that judgement succinctly.
@@TheIndependentPianistIt's part of the problem that people have no idea which agendas they are influenced by (which is particularly critical in our days). I reject artificial human categorizations too, but one should not ignore the "isms" by which society is shaped. Today more than ever, people are downright programmed and usually have no idea why they think the way they do.
But it is remarkable that today people believe to be individual thinkers, even though almost all of them think the same thing - namely perspectives that are extremely different or even opposite from what was a normal and healthy way of seeing things for their ancestors.
That's why it also makes me extremely uncomfortable when distinctive personalities like Rachmaninoff, (remarkable human personalities, a kind that no longer exists today) now become the subject of today's prevailing perspectives; he would have been better forgotten.
@@germanchris4440 Well I think I more or less know what is generally meant by postmodernism, but I also usually find that these terms tend to morph into quite different meanings depending on who is using them. So, for instance, I didn't quite understand why you were deriding postmodernism and subjectivity, while at the same time elevating an emotional (or subjective) response (disgust) to the level of objective fact.
Then you also say that remarkable human personalities like Rachmaninoff's no longer exist today. That feels distinctly like "golden age" thinking to me, of which I am quite wary-and again, a very subjective kind of viewpoint.
But honestly I'm quite willing to ignore all of that, because I'm not primarily concerned with pure philosophical debate. So my question remains open, should you choose to answer it: why, precisely, do you have this emotional reaction of disgust towards Hofmann's Chopin Nocturne? I'm not even trying to suggest that it is an incorrect reaction to have, I'd just be curious to learn why.
Or perhaps I'm just being too tolerant and considerate of your point of view ;-)
@@TheIndependentPianist One last brief answer on that, if you allow:
You see, this is how people get into philosophizing today, which leads nowhere and is actually also completely unnecessary - because naturally it is clear when something is inappropriate, perverting, ugly or the like. But there has just been a general kind of dissolution in evaluation and perception, and now everything is just a matter of taste, and so on. This is also the end of common sense - and all of this is part of the definition of "postmodernism", as fuzzy as philosophies are. Categorizations have their vagueness and are ultimately confusing, philosophy leads to nothing, it is the work of man and therefore always imperfect. But unfortunately, we are dealing with the implementation and, to a large extent, the realization of such concepts in this world. And there is fundamental agreement on certain key characteristics, and the disintegrating effect described above, which can be observed everywhere today, is one of them: no more truth, everything is subjective, everything is permitted; then there is the ideological insanity of "equality" everywhere ...
The so-called "Generation Z" is the biggest victim of this more than regrettable, deliberate development
I'll leave it at that, enough said. Except this - and that's a matter of free will:
Come to God through the one who is the ultimate truth (reality and not a religion): the Lord Jesus Christ, while there is still time! We all have a sin problem with God, and times are getting much worse soon. It's all written ...
Best regards and all the best to you!