Ravel: Miroirs No. 2, Oiseaux tristes (Sad Birds) - Julien Brocal

Performed by Julien Brocal at Tippet Rise Art Center's Olivier Music Barn, July 7, 2018.
Located in Fishtail, Montana, Tippet Rise celebrates art, music, architecture, and nature: inextricably linked in the human experience, each making the others more powerful.
Maurice Ravel: Miroirs No. 2, Oiseaux tristes (Sad Birds)
Performed by Julien Brocal
Film Director: Emily Rund
Cinematographer: Emily Rund
Editor: Emily Rund
Assistant Editor: Alex Coyle
Sound Recording: Monte Nickles, Jim Ruberto, Phillip Tock
Piano Tuner: Mike Toia
Sound Editor: Jim Ruberto
Sound Mastering: Monte Nickles
Produced in house at Tippet Rise Art Center.
Visit tippetrise.org/ | julienbrocal.com/

[@robertoc2485]

Thank you for playing 😊♥️

[@Ann-je6om]

Congratulation. After Richter interpretation I struggled to enjoy this marvellous music... I am speechless this rendition is REALLY good. Thank you so much

[@alexkliever4659]

Could you elaborate on what it is about Richter’s interpretation that made you struggle to enjoy this piece? I just had a listen after seeing your comment on this video, and I found it to be superior and more faithful to the score. Thank you in advance for your reply

[@AdrianoGrataniClassicalGuitar]

​@@alexkliever4659​@alexkliever4659 Hello Alex Liever, thanks for your question! I'll give my best to try to explain!
( the concert I mentioned was in Prague, 2 9 1965 I guess, by the way, in case you need a reference just search for "miroirs richter".)
I don't know the score of Miroirs unfortunately, so I will read carefully the score and respond you better in a next comment.
but the score for me is not that necessary to share with you what I mean, at least I think so, let me try to explain
I don't know this musician, but I highly respect him after this interpretation. this piece shows the intentions of the musician in my opinion.
This pianist make me feel like he plays the piece, most of the people they think, they practice, they do other thjngs with this piece. I feel lkke he is playing. just playing. not for career. not for rent(rent is important don't get me wrong). not to impress peers nor to win a stupid prize. not to make dad and mommy happy.
he cares for the piece.
he plays without thinking so he expresses something.His playing sounds consequential. Not disturbed by thinking process involved in "here I should do this because ravel said so"
this piece is not a tradition here, is not a crystal. I like him because I plays the sounds of the piece not just the notes (I will try to deliver this concept later on)
Is a good question. Concerning music, in my opinion the sound is the priority, and each sound respond to inner reasons. you have to follow your instinct (spoiler alert: it can go horribly wrong, even richter played badly in my opinion, many times, but this is a different topic) every time you play, your body and mind is slightly different = you perceive the piece in a way different from yesterday. these conditions react to the piece you play , and generate different conditions. listen to what you feel first , then find a balance between what you feel and what the composer wrote.
What is written comes in second place. always ( think about the choice of tempi in Eglogues, or in Brahms ballade 4 by Michelangeli i.e.) but only a well trained musician with a great deal of talent can approach the score in this way (spoiler alert n.2 : not me 😢).
i.e. a pianist can play exactly what is written and sound boring, though other pianist (Cortot, Michelangeli, Sokolov) they focus on the meaning behind the note."behind" is subjective, each "behind" is a different path. each path lead to different point of view. Think of a walk, in a nature untouched by human pollutions. you see trees, hills, clouds. you take the landscape for granted, the landscape is innerly ...consequential = is not disturbed by pieces of crap or rubbish (rubbish and crap are made of atoms just like a tree, I am not perorating an environmental cause like "nature is good humans are bad" here):
the tree is in relation with the position of the hill, the humidity etc etc. = we are not disturbed by any element we see while walking. Imagine a walk made of sound. sound is the tree, the cloud, the hill. the crap is our will and our ego = overthinking about the phrase, that mf, etc etc etc.
... I mean, the piece is growing, the "walk in nature" is growing, but our obsession with what the composer wrote at measure x, actually may bring crap.
now, a paradox: Gould ( = a person who looks egotistical and neurotical) walked a lot, musically speaking, think of his beethoven or mozart or Bach as well , his interpretations are consequential, there is no disturbance, no crap in my honest opinion.
Now, let's dig a bit:
Seymour Bernstein, a very profound musician, said that Gould put himself first, when you listen his recordings you are not allowed to listen to Bach, but Gould himself. It's true, maybe.
But For me is not the core.
Gould, Richter, etc sat at the piano, read a piece of paper containing prescription to play notes distributed over time = a piece, and they found their inner and consequential rules accordingly to their perception of the sounds. they play they notes thebway they feel, and in consequential way ("use your brain and use your heart") = I don't feel the crap, only the nature walk. Most of the time it worked. Many times they failed too.
(spoiler alert 3: bad news, working in this way is in my opinion way way way more tiring and stressfull, you ask and you doubt yourself a lot for each note
is best to think at a piece of music as a living embryo. it has to be internally proportionate and self justified ( = the crescendo Richter does at measure x, in the piece y, played on venue z, works ONLY for that particular y interpretation because is the perfect consequence of what happened, musically speaking, on preavious measure = that crescendo is consequence of previous context and is ... consequential. is just an example)
I know that I should explain theough words the meaning of "meaning" and "behind" ...
but I don't know how.
Music for me is a container of meaningless movements. meaningless as our life (in absolute terms) if you find a way to express (not just communicate) those internal movements coherently, you make music, (i.e. take harpo marx in his movies with groucho. he plays silly tunes with light heart. no overthinking of crescendos not fortes, no "peer-tradition-perfectionist inducted" pressure: no thinking, JUST PLAYING, and is more enjoyable than 99% of musicians)otherwise it's "just" notes.
a crescendo comes from the energy in your brain. otherwise a crescendo as written is pointless in my opinion.
btw I was a classical guitarist, I am ignorant in terms of technicalities when it comes to piano.
Ending: This pianist is a gift in my opinion. I am very unhappy with situation nowadays. I listen everyday to new generations of pianist, conductors etc... but they don't play as good as 70 80 years ago. This musician makes me feel hope.
His rendition of the whole Miroirs is beatiful.
I have to admit that Richter's one is not comparable though. is more intense, more natural, more dramatic, more.... more. is a state of trance.
This rendition in my opinion is far from being superior in any way. I prefer to listen to Richter, is more surprising, more beatiful tone, better legato on the repeated notes, better jnderstanding of the harmony, better understanding of the lower register.
Richter here is a beatiful walk in a dark, haunting and truthful, honest landscape (another paradox: humanazing a landscape is a bad practice, I apologize for this)
I wish this pianist to achieve his best and to impress me his audience for many many more years with other stunning renditions.
Sorry for this essay. let me know what you think, have a nice day!
adriano

[@alanmishael5013]

Richter is immortal.