# What do you think/feel about piano?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Piano is an instrument that I respect a lot and that I would definitely like to own. It's probably the most straightforward instrument for learning the music theory, and allows you to play some of the most complex music.

But then, I'm not that fond of sound of piano. For me it feels kind of cold, sterile and too percussive. Like some sort of hammering. It can't sing. Long notes can't really be sustained properly for their whole duration, etc...

Sure there are piano pieces that I enjoy listening very much. But generally I'm much more fond of the sound of string instruments, and also guitar. Any guitar does it for me. Classical, acoustic, electric, such a nice sound. Guitars produce sound in a similar way to piano, but I feel the sound of guitar is warmer, more mellow and pleasant. There's something special about harps too. I like the sound of harpsichord too. And accordion.

Piano is kind of pinnacle of elegance in my opinion. There's nothing excessive about it.
But I think also it depends on what sort of things you play. A lot of piano sonatas sound too hammery and even irritating to me. Similar pieces on strings would sound better IMO. But then some more approachable pieces such as for example Goldberg variations, or Hungarian rhapsody, sound really fine.

In general, easy, melodic pieces sound good on piano. But deeper, more challenging pieces, I prefer when they are performed on other instruments. For example I have no problems enjoying pieces like Grosse Fuge, but on the other hand I don't enjoy Hammerklavier sonata.

EDIT:
Another problem with piano is, I guess, just like it can't really sustain long notes,
when there's a rapid succession of short notes, it suffers from not being able to STOP sounding "old" notes, so in such situations you hear, like, 10 notes at once, where you should be hearing just single notes one after the other (or pairs, triplets, whatever, I realize there's left and right hand... but surely NOT hearing dozens of notes at once as it probably doesn't serve any musical purpose). It sounds rather cacophonic.

And then in such situations it's quite difficult to follow such playing.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'd say the piano only fails to sustain notes in the same way a violin can't let a note have a long, ringing decay such as a note played sostenuto on a piano and the key released.

The piano works like a piano works, a violin works like a violin works. They both have their strengths and weaknesses (I don't even want to refer to them as weaknesses). I accept them for what they are

You can get very soft on a piano and also very loud, hence the name. Its range covers almost the entire spectrum of the ranges of all the other orchestral instruments. It can produce chords over a huge range. It is highly responsive to touch. It can indeed _sing_, carrying notes of melodies, usually with the marking 'cantabile' to indicate a singing manner of playing.

I am beginning to think that many people just don't properly understand the piano.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Piano is an instrument that I respect a lot and that I would definitely like to own.


I supposed once you own a piano and really learn to play it, your opinion will change. Of course, I took organ lessons for three years, and now I don't like listening to organ music. So I guess I just disproved my point.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Piano is an instrument that I respect a lot and that I would definitely like to own. It's probably the most straightforward instrument for learning the music theory, and allows you to play some of the most complex music.
> 
> But then, I'm not that fond of sound of piano. For me it feels kind of cold, sterile and too percussive. Like some sort of hammering. It can't sing. Long notes can't really be sustained properly for their whole duration, etc...
> 
> ...


One thing to say is that not all pianos are the same.

I was very interested in the paragraph where you said that the piano sounded elegant and moderate, it's true it became an icon of the bourgeois drawing room! I think that's a real problem, that chain of associations, and maybe one of the reasons it's lost a lot of status in our own time.

I agree with you that a rapid succession of short notes isn't nice - Liszt transcriptions are full of it and I don't like them much for that reason. However real piano music is written so that a long sustain isn't necessary, so it's not a problem. There is some good music which was written for piano.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I find it far superior to its forerunners, such as the fortepiano, and the instrument has the advantage of being able to play all its harmonies under the control of one person. That's a tremendous benefit. Percussiveness. I've never found the music of Debussy for piano percussive at all, for instance. In fact, just the opposite that can sound even hammerless. It also depends upon the sensitivity of touch by the performer and the quality of the piano. For me, it's a great instrument with tremendous powers of expression that can 'sing'. Chopin's works are full of operatic, singing melodies.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

No instrument supersedes the human voice, but the piano is certainly one of my favorites -- after the cello and violin.

I do think that far too many people abuse the instrument -- inept to pedestrian "musicians" dominate the popular music landscape. Chris Martin (Coldplay), anyone?


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2019)

I like the piano best in modern repertoire that exploits its idiosyncrasies. My favourite pianist would be Nicolas Hodges.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I mostly prefer ensembles of instruments to solo instruments. That's because I like a variety of sounds, and there are lots of instruments whose sound I love but if they're played alone or at great length, I get bored.

As regards the piano in particular - I am not all that enamoured of long works written for the piano - but then, I know very little of them - but there are some very expressive works by Chopin & Liszt that I absolutely love.

There is no one instrument - off the top of my head - that I would dismiss out of hand. Okay, maybe the triangle.

But the piano has so many possibilities and is a wonderful instrument altogether.

The piano, I think, is not on trial - my taste and listening capabilities may be. 

Here are two piano compositions that in my opinion have a beautiful and plangent sound.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

I can recognize many of your problems, particularly the one with the fast repeated notes..

How percussive the modern piano (I suppose this is what you are talking about) sounds, depends much upon the pianist. Wilhelm Kempff and Edwin Fischer e.g. were able to sound very singing and "unpercussive". On the other hand some composers use the percussive character to great effect (Bartok e.g.). But because of the percussive effect problems arise, when the piano is used for music not written for it. But that ia another story.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan (Apr 27, 2018)

I also don´t care for the piano. 

There may be a few pieces played on the piano that are ok, but generally, I don´t like it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Beware! Percussive piano sonata! (But I enjoy its inquietude, wit, and humor.)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I used to dislike the piano as well, even after I got my certificate. It sounded dry and clangy to me. Over time I came to really love it. You can do all sorts of stuff on it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

Here's a piece by Rebecca Saunders I really love. I think her piano music really manages to capture much of the piano's most idiomatic qualities in terms of resonance, register, a wide variety of attacks and decays all shaped into some really beautiful, melancholic music. The sparse bursts of violence make this piece utterly remarkable to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ZJovicic said:


> I'm not that fond of sound of piano. For me it feels kind of *cold, sterile and too percussive. Like some sort of hammering. It can't sing. Long notes can't really be sustained properly for their whole duration*, etc...
> 
> Guitars produce sound in a similar way to piano, but I feel the sound of guitar is warmer, more mellow and pleasant. There's something special about harps too. *I like the sound of harpsichord too.* And accordion.
> 
> ...


Given what you dislike about the piano, there's no explaining your taste for the harpsichord, which is surely - and I quote - "cold, sterile and too percussive. Like some sort of hammering. It can't sing. Long notes can't really be sustained properly for their whole duration, etc."

Maybe you need to hear some great pianists, who might just make you forget all of the above. How about Ignaz Friedmann?


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

I love how Lachenmann also plays around with resonance. This piece is probably a bit harsher with denser harmonies and the rate of change is more drawn out than in the Saunders piece, but it's also a good example of the kind of things I adore in piano music. One would have to have an immense amount of control and precision to capture each resonating harmonic afterthought.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Judas Priest Fan said:


> I also don´t care for the piano.
> 
> There may be a few pieces played on the piano that are ok, but generally, I don´t like it.


A word of advice - don't listen to it


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

ZJovicic said:


> But then, I'm not that fond of sound of piano. For me it feels kind of cold, sterile [...]
> 
> Piano is kind of pinnacle of elegance in my opinion. There's nothing excessive about it.


On your first point, I agree that piano can sound cold. On your second, I think piano can be 'excessive' - or rather, some compositions in some pianists' hands can sound excessive. I readily tire of the runs and flourishes found in works intended to showcase the performer's virtuosity.

Having said that, some of my most favourite works are for piano, by Debussy, Satie and Fauré!


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Beware! Percussive piano sonata! (But I enjoy its inquietude, wit, and humor.)


Can you tell me, my dearest, who is performing the Sonata? It sounds very well, technically is perfect, but the interpretation has huge mistakes (??). Andante and not andantino, accelerando with sforzando the moment the composer wants only the first etc... I understand that maybe the (very good) pianist wants to give his personal note to the piece, (sounds very well, as I said) but to respect also the composer is a good thing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I love the sound of a piano. I like listening to compositions written for solo instrument, particularly piano, guitar and harpsichord. I could listen to solo piano music all day.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

tdc said:


> I love the sound of a piano. I like listening to compositions written for solo instrument, particularly piano, guitar and harpsichord. I could listen to solo piano music all day.


You've prompted me to observe that I love the sound of the orchestra...except when it's playing something I dislike (which reflects my earlier point about what I do/don't like about piano).

To take an easy example, I love the Dolly Suite by Fauré - how could anyone describe it as cold or 'hammering'? But I have yet to fall in love with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. It's not the piano, it's the composition. Similarly, I love Sibelius Symphony No 7, but not Mahler's Symphony No 8. It's not the orchestra, it's the composition.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> You've prompted me to observe that I love the sound of the orchestra...except when it's playing something I dislike (which reflects my earlier point about what I do/don't like about piano).
> 
> To take an easy example, I love the Dolly Suite by Fauré - how could anyone describe it as cold or 'hammering'? But I have yet to fall in love with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. It's not the piano, it's the composition. Similarly, I love Sibelius Symphony No 7, but not Mahler's Symphony No 8. It's not the orchestra, it's the composition.


Agreed. To clarify - I could listen to solo piano music all day, if it is music written by composers I enjoy. However I tend to spend a lot of time listening to piano works in general, so I think there is also something about the sound of the instrument itself that I like.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Must confess I love the sound of the piano. Such a versatile instrument which can be turned to all sorts of music. The ingenious fact is that it is a machine which can produce wonderful sounds.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Solo piano music was my first love in classical music and it still is my favorite genre next to symphonic music.
I don't recognize your troubles with the piano at all. I don't like a canny, metallic, harsh sound either, but apart from some bad recordings, or bad sounding piano's, I usually experience the sound of the piano as warm and very versatile in dynamics and expression. Just listen to any of Horowitz' later studio recordings (1970s +).

This is mostly a rather gentle piece, with a few moments of heavier dynamics; what's not to like?
What instrument could even come close?


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

Finnissy's _English Country Tunes_ are a very striking addition to the contemporary piano repertoire:






My favourites in this collection are "I'll Give My Love A Garland," "The Seeds Of Love" and "My Bonny Boy."


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

This is a more agressive, "percussive" piece with lots of staccato playing and a few moments of more legato, sustained sounds. Seems very clear to me even at its most extreme.






Or how about this? Less agressive in tone, still very clear rapid successions of notes.






And for a very warm legato sound. What sound!


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

Sometimes when I feel that a piano's basic tone is just a little bit too _neutral_ I find that it's always nice to listen again to works featuring piano and electronics. _Synchronisms no. 6_ by Mario Davidovsky is one of the best known ones, very angular and quirky but also with a certain feeling of quaintness from the retro-futuristic electronics blips, swells and swooshes:






Here's another one I find really cool: _Morphosis_ by Patrick Nunn. This time the electronics are operated by a live musician and the pianist together rather than synchronised to a tape track, and the pianist wears motion sensors that both give a good amount of control to the pianist of the sound of the electronics, but also has a real performative aspect to it making it an interesting piece to watch as much as it is to listen to:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And there are lots of ways of making musical sounds come out of the instrument


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

Crumb is a genius when it comes to inventive and utterly musical piano writing.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

'Cold' is not how I would ever describe the piano in general. There is of course a way of playing which can evoke it. Playing in the thin, high-register, deliberately for effect, but you can do the same with other instruments. That's what is great about the versatility of instruments.

I liked what Larkenfield wrote earlier in the thread about the music of Debussy being "almost hammerless", showing that this percussion-with-strings instrument has so many moods and capabilities in skilled hands (both builder and performer).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's some hammerless piano playing


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I have come to love the piano once I learned to appreciate it for what it really is, basically a combination of strings and percussion (timbrally speaking), which are my two favorite families of instruments, basically taking the best traits of both. You get the clarity of tone that comes with strings without the shrillness you sometimes get, and the direct attack of percussion but with more melody. Just a great instrument to hear and play overall, and its tone is kind of limitless. There's a million different ways to play it. Not to mention the massive range it has. I don't care for all solo piano music out there, but there's a lot of great stuff.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm glad Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel, Monk, and Bill Evans liked the piano. I love all instruments because they are unique. And there's nothing like the sound of a great artist playing one. Especially when the music transports you to a higher realm and you're not even thinking about the instrument.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Here's some hammerless piano playing


I remember doing exactly those things to a piano when I was a kid. It could have done wonders for my self-esteem to realize I was a composer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I remember doing exactly those things to a piano when I was a kid. It could have done wonders for my self-esteem to realize I was a composer.


Your self esteem seems to not be in need of any sort of boost, judging by how you come across on the web.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Your self esteem seems to not be in need of any sort of boost, judging by how you come across on the web.


I had to work at it. 35 years of improvising music for ballet - complete with melody, harmony and rhythm, produced by hammers - helped.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I had to work at it. 35 years of improvising music for ballet - complete with melody, harmony and rhythm, produced by hammers - helped.


I shouldn't have made that comment, I just came back to delete it in fact, but too late. I'm sorry.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

I like Guero, I think it's a cool idea, but I think pieces utilising the piano more _fully_ are more interesting to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I shouldn't have made that comment, I just came back to delete it in fact, but too late. I'm sorry.


No offense taken. I took it as teasing; I like a bit of ribbing, given or taken.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In defense of the harpsichord:


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I had to work at it. 35 years of improvising music for ballet - complete with melody, harmony and rhythm, produced by hammers - helped.


You have 35, I have 44, but it isn't mistake of our fellow member who made this post. This CHARLATAN who is offending the instrument and our intelligence and the other CHARLATANS have paid him and supported him to make and published this monstrosity are responsible. This is cultural death, an artistic crime beyond compare. And it is free in You Tube. Out friend made us (at least to me) a big favor, by showing us the complete music paralysis, the ultimate disrespect of any artistical value and I'm grateful to him. We must know the danger, to take measures against it. This is musical criminality, my dearest! Of the worst kind. And it is out there... If we had music police, the composer and the performer should had made a life time sentence in a musical prison, as cultural rapists.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

Dimace said:


> You have 35, I have 44, but it isn't mistake of our fellow member who made this post. This CHARLATAN who is offending the instrument and our intelligence and the other CHARLATANS have paid him and supported him to make and published this monstrosity are responsible. This is cultural death, an artistic crime beyond compare. And it is free in You Tube. Out friend made us (at least to me) a big favor, by showing us the complete music paralysis, the ultimate disrespect of any artistical value and I'm grateful to him. We must know the danger, to take measures against it. This is musical criminality, my dearest! Of the worst kind. And it is out there... If we had music police, the composer and the performer should had made a life time sentence in a musical prison, as cultural rapists.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

This is the kind of humour I really love, actually.............reminds me of this:






But also, you heard his other piece I posted back in the thread, right? _Serynade_? In all seriousness I would be curious to hear what you and other people think of that one.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

shirime said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> But also, you heard his other piece I posted back in the thread, right? _Serynade_? In all seriousness I would be curious to hear what you and other people think of that one.


I actually listened to it when it was posted, but skipping now and again.

I find it dull and annoying as 'music' and even where my interest would normally be held by any novel sound production, this didn't do it. Fellow instructs the pianist to hit a dissonant chord...pauses for an inexplicable reason....rest his elbows on the keyboard....perform highly-chromatic runs at an alarming pace...

Heard it all before. Tired hack. Who'd want to be 'serynaded' by anything like that? It's doubly annoying to use that daft spelling and to call something that is more likely to bring on unease a 'serynade'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dimace said:


> You have 35, I have 44, but it isn't mistake of our fellow member who made this post. This CHARLATAN who is offending the instrument and our intelligence and the other CHARLATANS have paid him and supported him to make and published this monstrosity are responsible. This is cultural death, an artistic crime beyond compare. And it is free in You Tube. Out friend made us (at least to me) a big favor, by showing us the complete music paralysis, the ultimate disrespect of any artistical value and I'm grateful to him. We must know the danger, to take measures against it. This is musical criminality, my dearest! Of the worst kind. And it is out there... If we had music police, the composer and the performer should had made a life time sentence in a musical prison, as cultural rapists.


_Pace, _Dimace.

Many years ago, I would have been as alarmed as you are. Now I'm too depressed about the more dangerous cultural death represented by the ascent of a psychopathic infant to the presidency of my country to be more than amused by such silly charlatanism in the arts, which has been going on since long before I was born and had already hit bottom when I was a youth entering life with high hopes for a shining future. It hardly phases me to see that people calling themselves composers are still wriggling about in the muck, and that some people - a minority, but a vocal and pretentious one - have conceded everything to them and have happily defined music down. Frankly, I have no energy left to take measures against artistic crimes, except to share my amused contempt in a place like this.

But I agree with you completely. _Sic transit gloria musicorum._


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

It's nice to hear people's opinions, I guess, but I am yet to understand how the existence of some of my favourite composers represent the death of something I and everyone here love.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


>


This could actually be quite magical as a visual for the audience if done well, not as music but as an experience of stillness and silence. I find it hard not to be reminded of an elaboration of Cage's 4:33 in its similarity and for me that lessened some of its impact and appeal. But it's certainly a hammerless performance and I felt that it was relatively well done for whatever it's trying to do.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I felt that it was relatively well done for whatever it's trying to do.


High praise indeed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Here's some hammerless piano playing


That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. There was a pause at one point where he seemed to forget where to go next and adjusted the sheet 'music' to get back on track. It occurs to me that we are seeing perhaps the lowest common denominator of what some call composing. Although it must be encouraging to some that one can call themself a composer with a performance that requires absolutely no piano or composition education whatsoever.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It’s funny to read these reactions to Guero. I’m not sure what’s got people’s nickers in such a twist. I know it’s hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'd be more interested in what you actually like about that, what it does to you as music and why you felt you had to post it in this topic, which was obviously meant to discuss the nature of the sound of the piano as it is commonly played and intended to be played. 
Personally I couldn't care less about these "novel" ways to "play" on traditional accoustic instruments, for the simple reason that I don't care at all for the sounds that are produced this way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> It's funny to read these reactions to Guero. I'm not sure what's got people's nickers in such a twist. I know it's hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


It's much easier to be outraged than to be articulate. I can't see what all the fuss is about. This piece is almost 50 years old and fits into a tradition of what might be called "anti-music", but unlike Cage's 4'33", there are actually deliberately selected sounds which give us something to listen to. I can't say I liked it, but I see no reason to heap opprobrium on it. Its effect is not dissimilar to the ASMR vids doing the rounds on Youtube (though I' not going to post one here).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I don’t think it’s anti-music at all! Though I can see that it was subversive at the time. Surely not now. I enjoy it just at an aesthetic, musical, level in fact, same way as I like Henry Cowell’s Aeolean Harp and Luc Ferrari’s Presque Rien. I think it’s beautiful music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> It's funny to read these reactions to Guero. I'm not sure what's got people's nickers in such a twist. I know it's hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


Am I exempt from this? I already said what I don't like about Guero in contrast to Serynade.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

shirime said:


> Am I exempt from this? I already said what I don't like about Guero in contrast to Serynade.


I missed it. You don't like pieces which use only indeterminate pitches? But imagine using a piano for a composition like that, a concert grand! I will listen again to Serynade, I can't remember it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think it's anti-music at all! Though I can see that it was subversive at the time. I enjoy it just at an aesthetic, musical, level in fact, same way as I like Henry Cowell's Aeolean Harp. I think it's beautiful music.


I didn't say it is anti-music! I said it _might _be termed "anti-music" (note the scare quotes). It would require more exploration than I have time to devote to it now - I thought it might be pretty obvious what I mean to use such a shorthand.

Whether the composer meant it as a "serious" composition, to be listened to as composed sounds in exactly the same way as Beethoven intended us to listen to his symphonies, or intended us to reflect more philosophically on what is being performed, I don't know. But it was deliberately "composed" outside of the western classical tradition that some narrowly determine as "music" and so might be seen as "anti" that tradition.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I didn't say it is anti-music! I said it _might _be termed "anti-music" (note the scare quotes). It would require more exploration than I have time to devote to it now - I thought it might be pretty obvious what I mean to use such a shorthand.
> 
> Whether the composer meant it as a "serious" composition, to be listened to as composed sounds in exactly the same way as Beethoven intended us to listen to his symphonies, or intended us to reflect more philosophically on what is being performed, I don't know. But it was deliberately "composed" outside of the western classical tradition that some narrowly determine as "music" and so might be seen as "anti" that tradition.


Sorry if I got you wrong, I'm trying to read these posts and get ready to catch the tube at the same time! And yes. It is anti something. Anti establishment maybe. C'est là pour épater la bourgeoisie! En partie au moins.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

shirime said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> This is the kind of humour I really love, actually.............reminds me of this:
> 
> ...


No, my good friend! I heard ONLY the one the guy is doing nothing! If the other one you mentioned is good, I will write that is SUPER, EXCELLENT etc. without any problem. I'm ''judging'' every case separately. Like I did with John Cage, who is for me an IMPORTANT composer, who has composed very good music. (I have all his recordings and diaries) When he made this monstrosity with the NO MUSIC piano play (the complete silence) I said the same and worse for him.

It is like a good husband and father. 364 days a year is the best with his wife and children. He is doing everything for them, fulfills every wish they have. But, one day per year (yes, ONLY ONE) beat his children to hospital and rapes his wife. Sorry, I don't like such behavior and I must say this.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> I missed it. You don't like pieces which use only indeterminate pitches? But imagine using a piano for a composition like that, a concert grand! I will listen again to Serynade, I can't remember it.


Well, actually I'm not so much a fan of Guero because to me it's just less interesting than Lachenmann's other piano works because of the constraints he put on how sounds are actually produced. A while back I posted another piece which I like a lot more due to its more varied approach to crafting a sense of musical shape from very subtle taps, clicks (and other sounds) using the keys of the piano (I can PM you a link to that piece so I don't trigger anyone who is too offended by this kind of music lmao). I think, for me, the other piece was more engaging because it had enough sonic scope to play around with my expectations in a way that Guero doesn't.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> _Pace, _Dimace.
> 
> Many years ago, I would have been as alarmed as you are. Now I'm too depressed about the more dangerous cultural death represented by the ascent of a psychopathic infant to the presidency of my country to be more than amused by such silly charlatanism in the arts, which has been going on since long before I was born and had already hit bottom when I was a youth entering life with high hopes for a shining future. It hardly phases me to see that people calling themselves composers are still wriggling about in the muck, and that some people - a minority, but a vocal and pretentious one - have conceded everything to them and have happily defined music down. Frankly, I have no energy left to take measures against artistic crimes, except to share my amused contempt in a place like this.
> 
> But I agree with you completely. _Sic transit gloria musicorum._


10000000000000000 thanks for your post, my dearest friend.

I have seen the same things with a violin, a viola, a cello etc. I said nothing, because I had absolute no interest for these instruments. (very bad indeed) When it comes to piano I lose my mind and I write down whatever I want. And, this is sh...t, it seems (and maybe is the truth) that I don't care about the music like entity, but only for my instrument. It was a BAD post the one I criticized that guy... Because I knew nothing about him. Only what I had seen in a sort video. Thanks again!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> It's funny to read these reactions to Guero. I'm not sure what's got people's nickers in such a twist. I know it's hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


The superficiality of some alleged attempts at profound art is so obvious that 'more precision' would be a waste of time, if possible at all. However, I'm sorry that I can't rise to the rarified heights of your articulation.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> It's funny to read these reactions to Guero. I'm not sure what's got people's nickers in such a twist. I know it's hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


Precision about what? Another trivial piece of silliness that someone calling himself a composer has put together and which people present and discuss as if it had any significance whatsoever, much less relevance to the topic at hand? The swirly patterns on my bathroom floor tiles have more perceptual interest and aesthetic value, but I doubt that their designer exhibits them in art galleries or that wide-eyed fans cite them on art forums as worthy of general attention. I will admit, though, that they can keep me entertained while I'm heeding nature's call. Maybe "Guero" could be put to similar use.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> someone calling himself a composer has put together and which people present and discuss as if it had any significance whatsoever, much less relevance to the topic at hand?


It is entirely relevant. If the question is "What do you think of the piano?", this can easily be seen as a relevant answer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Precision about what? Another trivial piece of silliness that someone calling himself a composer has put together and which people present and discuss as if it had any significance whatsoever, much less relevance to the topic at hand? The swirly patterns on my bathroom floor tiles have more perceptual interest and aesthetic value, but I doubt that their designer exhibits them in art galleries or that wide-eyed fans cite them on art forums as worthy of general attention. I will admit, though, that they can keep me entertained while I'm heeding nature's call. Maybe "Guero" could be put to similar use.


Sounds to me that you stand to Lachenmann here as this poster stands to Mozart, I like both



Captainnumber36 said:


> Not really, it's superficially joyous, it lacks the depth of the romantics, beeths in particular!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> It is entirely relevant. If the question is "What do you think of the piano?", this can easily be seen as a relevant answer.


It's clear that people of his ilk are so threatened, poor souls, that they want to act as a censor.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And that simplest Lute, 
Placed length-ways in the clasping casement, hark! 
How by the desultory breeze caressed, 
Like some coy maid half yielding to her lover, 
It pours such sweet upbraiding, as must needs 
Tempt to repeat the wrong! And now, its strings 
Boldlier swept, the long sequacious notes 
Over delicious surges sink and rise, 
Such a soft floating witchery of sound 
As twilight Elfins make, when they at eve 
Voyage on gentle gales from Fairy-Land, 
Where Melodies round honey-dropping flowers, 
Footless and wild, like birds of Paradise, 
Nor pause, nor perch, hovering on untamed wing! 
O! the one Life within us and abroad, 
Which meets all motion and becomes its soul, 
A light in sound, a sound-like power in light, 
Rhythm in all thought, and joyance everywhere— 
Methinks, it should have been impossible 
Not to love all things in a world so filled; 
Where the breeze warbles, and the mute still air 
Is Music slumbering on her instrument.

(Here because I wanted a way of deleting a post and the mention of Henry Cowell made me think of it!)


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Sounds to me that you stand to Lachenmann here as this poster stands to Mozart, I like both


I get this sense as well. It strikes me as odd for Woodduck to behave so irrationally here because I usually have a deep admiration for his often very insightful posts.

But Woodduck does bring up something interesting, although unrelated, and that is the decorative arts (see the comment about patterns on bath tiles). Personally, I have always been very attracted to decorative and ornamental arts. Some of the most impressive things I've laid my eyes on have been carved wooden doors in European Baroque castles, chandeliers in opera houses, the impressive interiors of mosques and orthodox churches but also, on a more humble scale, the design of some old pieces of pottery (and newer ones too!), a chess set, things too numerous to mention which I _have_ seen displayed in art galleries. Are these things not nice to look at too? I'd go see an exhibition of bath tiles, personally, but the existence of _nice things_ shouldn't make people behave the way Woodduck is behaving. Who is to say what is worthy of being labelled art or music? Who even _has_ that kind of self importance? It leaves me confused, although I don't wish to dwell on it because I would rather get back to listening to the nice things I enjoy.

I'm out of this silly argument, and I'll go back to simply sharing piano pieces I like and giving my opinion acknowledging the OP's sentiments.

Here's some more piano music, a collection of miniatures. I think the OP might appreciate that rapid flurries of notes here are actually very clear rather than obscured, as seemed to be the concern. Even when there are very short passages of running notes that are too fast for one to process every single one, the composer seems to me to be able to provide a kind of 'anchor' through a note or a chord that cuts through and sticks in the memory for a brief moment before moving on.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

As a solo instrument it reigns supreme with its rich literature that has the ability to capture the essence of just about any composer, even more so than the violin. Why? Because the performer can do it all, rhythm, harmony, melody, all under one roof. Unless you want to take up the harp, marimba or xylophone, you have your work cut out for you as a solo instrument with its incredible range of expression. Even the megalomanic Wagner wrote for it when he wasn't criticizing Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, or Chopin, though I wouldn't call his works even "minor clever". His models were predominantly Beethoven and Weber. But I would never blame that on the instrument.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> It's funny to read these reactions to Guero. I'm not sure what's got people's nickers in such a twist. I know it's hard to be more articulate but more precision on the part of the contributors would be appreciated.


My underwear is perfectly untwisted thanks! I reckon if people want to get themselves conned by this sort of nonsense they are welcome! :lol:

Reminds me of a recent Laurel and Hardy movie I have watched - only less tuneful!


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

DavidA said:


> My underwear is perfectly untwisted thanks! I reckon if people want to get themselves conned by this sort of nonsense they are welcome! :lol:


It is anusing to see the length people will go to to defend pretentious twaddle.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This all started with someone saying that Debussy wanted his music to be played in a way which sounds as though there are no hammers involved, or something like that. Where did Debussy say this?


----------



## THGra (Jan 15, 2019)

I am new here... My first thought was: I absolutely love the piano , just like I love the cello , the violin, the clarinet... each instrument has its own qualities.
I listened to Schubert's D.960 at noon, and it made me cry , just like it nearly always does... I absolutely love the piece and the way the piano moves me... But there are pieces for Violin that have an effect on me ... just like the cello (eg.Dvorak's cello concerto).


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

shirime said:


> It's nice to hear people's opinions, I guess, but I am yet to understand how the existence of some of my favourite composers represent the death of something I and everyone here love.


Much as I love it, TC is, by some distance, the most conservative music forum I have ever taken part in (which is fine: conservatism in music is, of course, a valid perspective).

However, I will never understand why people will shut down genuine displays of enthusiasm like many have done in this thread. If someone is showing enthusiasm for something and you don't like it, why the need to respond by saying the music is an artistic crime?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Lisztian said:


> However, I will never understand why people will shut down genuine displays of enthusiasm like many have done in this thread.


I think this is an interesting question, though this isn't the right place to discuss it. I suspect it goes into people's self images and insecurities.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> *It strikes me as odd for Woodduck to behave so irrationally here...*
> I'd go see an exhibition of bath tiles, personally, but the existence of nice things shouldn't make people behave the way Woodduck is behaving. *Who is to say what is worthy of being labelled art or music? **Who even has that kind of self importance? It leaves me confused...*


Anyone who would call other people on this forum "irrational" for making artistic judgments with which they disagree would appear to be looking for some sort of trouble. Who has that kind of self-importance? Or simple cluelessness? But then you do say that you're confused...

Calling out the silliness people offer as "art" is not "irrational behavior." On the contrary, spending one's time contemplating the bizarre manifestations of self-importance which talentless people offer as music, and then spending yet more time praising them on a music forum and insulting people who don't agree with one's tastes, would be considered highly "irrational" by most of humanity throughout most of time.

Obviously you subscribe to the fresh, courageous and bourgeoisie-provoking notion that anything can be art or music if someone merely says that it is. Ho hum. Maybe the distinction between "being art" (which only some things are) and "having aesthetic qualities" (which anything can) has not occurred, or is not important, to you. Well, fine. Each to his own hierarchy of values. I continue to think, despite the very clever Duchamp and his very clever descendants, that urinals belong in men's rooms, not in art galleries - a fact which does not preclude admiration for their pristine whiteness, subtle curves, and complex sonorities as they perform for me a service which art galleries should perform for the very clever so-called artists who show up on their doorsteps with portfolios full of...something.

Now excuse me as I go back to enjoying one of my own favorite contemporary works for piano. I would hope that ZJovicic will find that his objections to the piano dissolve completely in the face of such spontaneous and unpretentious artistry.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I think this is an interesting question, though this isn't the right place to discuss it. I suspect it goes into people's self images and insecurities.


Another interesting question is why, in response to legitimate criticism of a work (which after all is part of the healthy functioning of art-related forums), a few will respond with suggestions about alleged personal limitations of the poster(s).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lisztian said:


> Much as I love it, TC is, by some distance, the most conservative music forum I have ever taken part in (which is fine: conservatism in music is, of course, a valid perspective).
> 
> However, I will never understand why people will shut down genuine displays of enthusiasm like many have done in this thread. If someone is showing enthusiasm for something and you don't like it, why the need to respond by saying the music is an artistic crime?


It is not possible, or desirable, to shut down anyone's displays of enthusiasm. But it sounds as if you want to shut down anyone who questions the objects of that enthusiam.

Please explain why a music forum is not an appropriate place for music criticism. Is this now a "safe space"? Who gets to be "safe," and who gets to be called "irrational" (see post #65)?

Maybe it's time to rethink the meaning of "conservative." In the culture of 2019, anyone who rejects the now-tired Modernist/Postmodernist dogma of "anything is anything" is not conservative but radical.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Remembering when the "poles" flipped in 2012...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> .
> ...I continue to think, despite the very clever Duchamp and his very clever descendants, that urinals belong in men's rooms, not in art galleries - a fact which does not preclude admiration for their pristine whiteness, subtle curves, and complex sonorities as they perform for me a service which art galleries should perform for the very clever so-called artists who show up on their doorsteps with portfolios full of...something.


I realize that all these years, I have been taking both the urinal (and the artist who designed it) for granted. In the future, I will approach it with new-found appreciation and reverence.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It is not possible, or desirable, to shut down anyone's displays of enthusiasm. But it sounds as if you want to shut down anyone who questions the objects of that enthusiam.
> 
> Please explain why a music forum is not an appropriate place for music criticism. Is this now a "safe space"? Who gets to be "safe," and who gets to be called "irrational" (see post #65)?
> 
> Maybe it's time to rethink the meaning of "conservative." In the culture of 2019, anyone who rejects the now-tired Modernist/Postmodernist dogma of "anything is anything" is not conservative but radical.


It's not a matter of this forum not being a place for music criticism. Rather, it's a matter of having respect for the views of others. I respect your right to question the merits of certain works and your/others views on the matter would be fine by me...would be, until the deluge of posts that implicitly say that those who are enthusiastic about the objects of controversy are being conned, are charlatans, like the lowest common denominator, are intrigued by composers that are talentless, etc. How one argues things is important. You don't like it when, say, DavidA starts going off about Wagner, and we don't like it when half a thread turns into bashing of composers we are enthusiastic about.

No, it's not time to re-think the meaning of 'conservative.' I agree that a work like Guero will always be controversial, and I personally have little interest in it myself. It was more a general statement, implying that of course if many people on this forum don't even accept, say, Webern...of course some of the more outre stuff will not be respected at all (i.e, Lachenmann being 'talentless).' I stand by my statement completely, and indeed this website has a reputation for it by now.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Please explain why a music forum is not an appropriate place for music criticism. .





DaveM said:


> to legitimate criticism of a work .


I don't want to put you guys to any trouble, it's probably just me, but I can't see any criticism of the piece by Lachenmann from you two -- the only criticism I've seen has been from Shirime when s/he said that it's a bit limited because it doesn't divest itself fully of the piano's resources for determinate pitch. I'm probably going blind but all I can see in your posts is the idea that one of you, Woodduck I think, thinks it's pleasant but trivial, like the tiles in his bathroom -- I pointed out someone who says much the same about Mozart. Is that really it?

If there's more criticism that I've missed, would you mind spelling it out for me?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I don't want to put you guys to any trouble, it's probably just me, but I can't see any criticism of the piece by Lachenmann from you two -- the only criticism I've seen has been from Shirime when s/he said that it's a bit limited because it doesn't divest itself fully of the piano's resources for determinate pitch. I'm probably going blind but all I can see in your posts is the idea that one of you, Woodduck I think, thinks it's pleasant but trivial, like the tiles in his bathroom -- I pointed out someone who says much the same about Mozart. Is that really it?
> 
> If there's more criticism that I've missed, would you mind spelling it out for me?


Personally, the comments about articulation, self-images and insecurities soured any interest I might have had in responding to that request.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Personally, the comments about articulation, self-images and insecurities soured any interest I might have had in responding to that request.


I understand.

w;'fcmkwsalkfcnj


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Let us pretend that we are speaking about love (piano)

One can say that he is a great felling. Another that it provokes pain. A third that he is disappointed from it. (criticism) 

And suddenly, we start to conversate about porno! (this no music, hilarious and irritating for the common esthetic video /s) 

The piano is a music instrument meant to produce sound (and many times melody). The moment I hear no sound and I see one guy who is hitting without a reason the instrument, trying to destroy it what can I say? In this instrument once upon a time played one Horowitz, one Arrau, one Gilels, etc. Such a behavior is disrespectful to all this Titans. 

Of course, if one fellow member likes this kind of musical behavior, I will respect him / her till to the very end. Everybody has the right to like, to love and to defend strange things. And we (the users we don't like them) to throw them out of the window... :lol:

Top conversation also here with strong opinions!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I suppose there are several aspects to it

1. Exploring non standard ways of making sounds come out of the instrument, like when guitarists slap and tap the case, or violinists playing col legno.

2. Exploring how you can make a short piece of music out of that way of using the piano to make sounds.

3. The notation in the score.

4. The gesture of using a piano like this, especially in that youtube video I found because it's presented like a classical concert.

Here's a bit of the score, by the way











Dimace said:


> Such a behavior is disrespectful to all this Titans.


No more than, for example, Biber intended disrespect to traditional violinists when he asked for very extreme tunings, or electric guitarists intend disrespect to acoustic guitarists,


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I suppose there are several aspects to it
> 
> 1. Exploring non standard ways of making sounds come out of the instrument, like when guitarists slap and tap the case, or violinists playing col legno.
> 
> ...


+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (these guys, at least, are producing (bad) sound. They are not hitting completely pointless their instruments and something else!) Thanks a lot for the good additional comment!

(I like rock music! Reo Speed Wagon, Dire Straits, The Queen (Fred, the biggest in history) etc. If something is OK is OK. The people out there knows. These guitar solos!!!! Are so FFF difficult!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lisztian said:


> It's not a matter of this forum not being a place for music criticism. Rather, it's a matter of having respect for the views of others. I respect your right to question the merits of certain works and your/others views on the matter would be fine by me...would be, until *the deluge of posts that implicitly say that those who are enthusiastic about the objects of controversy are being conned, are charlatans, like the lowest common denominator, are intrigued by composers that are talentless, etc.* How one argues things is important. *You don't like it when, say, DavidA starts going off about Wagner, and we don't like it when half a thread turns into bashing of composers we are enthusiastic about.*


If you will look back over this thread, you will not find a "deluge" of posts doing the things you mention. You may, however, find an early and repeated effort on the part of one poster to display his taste for contemporary piano music of a certain (atonal and fragmented) kind, an effort that doesn't address the OP's concerns about the piano's articulation but seems, basically, a personal indulgence. If you think the thread at any point "turns into bashing of composers we _[who?]_ are enthusiastic about," consider that a certain member of this "we" appeared intent on hosting a "check out this really cool contemporary music" show.

Don't complain about people hijacking a thread that was already in the process of being hijacked.

As for your bringing up my objections to some ignorant and pesky criticisms of Wagner, there are important distinctions to be made. Wagner has been regarded for a century and a half as one of the supreme geniuses of art, and his exalted position is difficult to deny whether one likes his music (or personal character) or not. But we are not dealing with a giant of music in this discussion. We are dealing with stuff that some people reasonably consider not to be art at all - or, at best, to be the most empty and trivial sort of art a human being could produce. Objecting that an arrangement of noises, offered by a composer whom only a tiny handful of people even know about, doesn't amount to good music (or any sort of music) merely because a piano is (mis)used to produce it, is not equivalent to objecting to someone's obsessive, endlessly repeated claims that a world-changing creator's libretti are nonsense, that his operas are too long, that they are only intermittently enjoyable, that their characters are caricatures of Jews, and that when we discuss his work we ought to keep Hitler and the Holocaust in mind.

I don't acknowledge any supposed equivalence that trivializes my objections to that persistent behavior. My statements about Wagner are rooted in extensive knowledge of an immense subject that can and does inspire, in me and others, a lifetime of study and appreciation. I don't hear anything in Mr. Lachenmann's noise experiments that would make such study and appreciation necessary. And, to repeat, I see no reason why they should have been brought into this thread in the first place. I thought the best response was my first reaction in post #33. One good joke deserves another.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> If you will look back over this thread, you will not find a "deluge" of posts doing the things you mention. You may, however, find an early and repeated effort on the part of one poster to display his taste for contemporary piano music of a certain (atonal and fragmented) kind, an effort that doesn't address the OP's concerns about the piano's articulation but seems, basically, a personal indulgence. If you think the thread at any point "turns into bashing of composers we _[who?]_ are enthusiastic about," consider that a certain member of this "we" appeared intent on hosting a "check out this really cool contemporary music" show.
> 
> Don't complain about people hijacking a thread that was already in the process of being hijacked.
> 
> ...


If we start to have doubts for Wagner let us close the shop and speak about cooking… (Wagner and this charlatan in the same conversation is a logic alienation from the very base of common sense)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> This all started with someone saying that Debussy wanted his music to be played in a way which sounds as though there are no hammers involved, or something like that. Where did Debussy say this?


It didn't. That comment (from Larkenfield) referred to how Debussy's use of sostenuto and light touch could make the piano seem "almost hammerless". That was a reaction to the assertion that the piano is hard and percussive.

Hard to tell if you're taking the mick or just too lazy to flip back and check.

Personally I agree with Woodduck about the thread being used by Shirime to shoehorn-in another highly-idiosyncratic work. It's not that the works are all bad or 'not music' - though some are truly abysmal - but it's its pretty tiresome having such pieces of performance art constantly paraded with the dubiously 'sincere' question: "I'd like to know what people think of it..." This itself is like a piece of performance art with the name: _Taking the Rise_.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

One has to ask what the backstory is for offering the Lachemann ‘work’ as a piano piece in the first place. After all, one doesn’t need to know how to play the piano or even how to read piano notation to create it. Virtually anyone could come up with something similar. This forum is Talk Classical. Are there no longer any parameters that distinguish classical music from random sounds? Could it not be said that random dinks, docks, clicks, dings, dongs are closer to primitive attempts to present sounds back in the Stone Age than some kind of a modern positive, innovative progression of classical music?

Why would someone like myself care? Well, classical music has always had something magical about it. Something that I personally believe transcends any other genre of music, as much as I may love some of the latter. The composers that created it ran the gamut from the level of remarkably talented to that of genius. It took incredible education often from a very early age to create classical music. This often required an understanding of all the instruments of the orchestra and usually a mastering of one or more of them.

So, standing by while this Lechemann work work is presented as having significance in the classical music world would be an insult to the latter and an acknowledgement that it is okay to dumb down the definition of what classical music is considered to be. Also, doing so sets a precedent that composing classical music can mean nothing more than coming up with a random combination of random sounds, an activity that requires no education in the genre and, at worse, no discernible skill.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Personally I think the percussive side of the piano work wonders for a more pointillist, hard edged style typical of mid-20th Century modernism. Some of the shorter Stockhausen _Klavierstücke_ are illustrative of this:






By 2005, this was taken to the extreme in Spahlinger's _Farben der Frühe_ for 7 pianos. The percussive piano parts in denser passages seem to stumble over one another in a kind of rigorous chaos, giving way at other times to the clarity of isolated staccato notes flung about almost erratically around the ensemble. NEOS has a good release of this, best in surround sound. Whether one is interested in _clarity_ in passages or not, I think sometimes a case can be made that the _overall effect_ of rapid streams of notes is the intend effect at the surface level of the music, rather than distinguishable pitches in a melody.






Going back to an earlier comment, I think there's a recent equivalent to the kind of 'hammerless' effect (as described by Debussy) in parts of Chris Dench's piano sonata.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Completely incorrigible.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

THGra said:


> I am new here... My first thought was: I absolutely love the piano , just like I love the cello , the violin, the clarinet... each instrument has its own qualities.
> I listened to Schubert's D.960 at noon, and it made me cry , just like it nearly always does... I absolutely love the piece and the way the piano moves me... But there are pieces for Violin that have an effect on me ... just like the cello (eg.Dvorak's cello concerto).


I personally love instruments the most when they are composed for in such a way where one can't imagine the music being written for any instrument besides the instrument playing it. Mandryka mentioned Crumb before, and in my opinion he is the peak of writing idiomatically for piano, based on my first sentence (and also the amount of piano music I have so far heard).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

shirime said:


> I personally love instruments the most when they are composed for in such a way where one can't imagine the music being written for any instrument besides the instrument playing it. Mandryka mentioned Crumb before, and in my opinion he is the peak of writing idiomatically for piano, based on my first sentence (and also the amount of piano music I have so far heard).


Yes I'm inclined to agree with this. It's almost as if I want to say that the traditional, Chopin and Liszt type piano music, really radically misunderstands the potential of the instrument. That's probably partly why I've never found what they do very satisfying, even though there's some very good music in it I'm sure. George Crumb is quite possibly the first and only great composer for the piano.

I'm amazed to learn from from eugene that Debussy did not say that he wanted his music played hammerlessly. It's something I remember my own piano teacher telling me when I was a child, but I've never seen where the idea comes from. Just a myth I suppose.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I am the first and only great composer for the harpsichord. Previous composers were clueless.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> It's not a matter of this forum not being a place for music criticism. Rather, it's a matter of having respect for the views of others. I respect your right to question the merits of certain works and your/others views on the matter would be fine by me...would be, until the deluge of posts that implicitly say that those who are enthusiastic about the objects of controversy are being conned, are charlatans, like the lowest common denominator, are intrigued by composers that are talentless, etc. How one argues things is important.


We can all question and criticize any music/art being discussed and we are all free in how we do that. Anyone can express strong dislike or even contempt for music, in any way he or she chooses. Sometimes it may not be in good taste, but as long as it doesn't get personal towards other members, I see no problem with it. 
It's very simple, you discuss the object and not the authenticity of a member's tastes and feelings with regards to that object. Questioning each other's tastes, enthusiasm and passion for music on this forum is really the last thing we should do. Anybody who puts any effort into this forum has genuine appreciation or passion for the music, unless he's simply a troll.

That being said, I don't think you need to tell Woodduck that it's important how one argues and I also don't think he showed any disrespect to other members in this thread. He is more than capable of defending himself, but let me just add that Woodduck is simply very articulate and, I think, better than most of us in voicing his opinion and bringing his point across. And he does so with confidence, a certain authority and sometimes a razor sharp tone. Some people might mistake this for arrogance, or might feel attacked... but I don't think he is ever disrespectful towards other members.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Yes I'm inclined to agree with this. It's almost as if I want to say that the traditional, Chopin and Liszt type piano music, really radically misunderstands the potential of the instrument. That's probably partly why I've never found what they do very satisfying, even though there's some very good music in it I'm sure. George Crumb is quite possibly the first and only great composer for the piano.


Hmmmmm...I am inclined to agree here as well, but also the piano was undergoing a lot of development during their century as well, and there _were_ quite a few experimental instruments. I come from a guitar background primarily, and the guitar was undergoing a lot of development as well; there was no standard instrument and professional instruments could have extra bass strings and extended registers upwards with added frets. Most composers for guitar, if they wanted their music to be learnt (and a lot of it was learnt by students, playing smaller, 6 string student instruments which were more or less standardised) they would have to accept limitations that they might not personally have.

There were some pretty interesting cases of more experimental pianos with more pedals than today's customary three, utilised for relevant effects in relevant repertoire (here's something in the 'turkish style):






But bassoon stops, drums, bells and other effects weren't really to become a feature later down the track of the piano's development. Still, the music of Chopin, Liszt, Thalberg, Alkan etc. is very much a product of the time they were composed. The instruments they composed for and played were being stretched to the limit of what was possible and pianos were being especially made to meet their demands.

George Crumb's music was written based on a piano that he himself owns. The bracing inside the piano above the strings is different for other pianos and it renders some of the playing directly on the string impossible if a pianist is unlucky enough that there's a metal bar in the way of where they need to strum a chord. His piano writing may be extremely idiomatic, that's for sure, but it's still dependent on having a piano where one can actually do the things he's asking a pianist to do.



> I'm amazed to learn from from eugene that Debussy did not say that he wanted his music played hammerlessly. It's something I remember my own piano teacher telling me when I was a child, but I've never seen where the idea comes from. Just a myth I suppose.


I've certainly heard that Debussy said something like that, a pianist I have composed for was talking about it once


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

DaveM said:


> One has to ask what the backstory is for offering the Lachemann 'work' as a piano piece in the first place. After all, one doesn't need to know how to play the piano or even how to read piano notation to create it. Virtually anyone could come up with something similar. This forum is Talk Classical. Are there no longer any parameters that distinguish classical music from random sounds? Could it not be said that random dinks, docks, clicks, dings, dongs are closer to primitive attempts to present sounds back in the Stone Age than some kind of a modern positive, innovative progression of classical music?
> 
> Why would someone like myself care? Well, classical music has always had something magical about it. Something that I personally believe transcends any other genre of music, as much as I may love some of the latter. The composers that created it ran the gamut from the level of remarkably talented to that of genius. It took incredible education often from a very early age to create classical music. This often required an understanding of all the instruments of the orchestra and usually a mastering of one or more of them.
> 
> So, standing by while this Lechemann work work is presented as having significance in the classical music world would be an insult to the latter and an acknowledgement that it is okay to dumb down the definition of what classical music is considered to be. Also, doing so sets a precedent that composing classical music can mean nothing more than coming up with a random combination of random sounds, an activity that requires no education in the genre and, at worse, no discernible skill.


If Lachenmann was taking the **** out of serious classical music, he might have had this kind of attitude in mind.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

shirime said:


> Sometimes when I feel that a piano's basic tone is just a little bit too _neutral_ I find that it's always nice to listen again to works featuring piano and electronics ...


Wait I forgot to mention another one in addition to the two I mentioned in this post: _In Tempore_ by João Pedro Oliveira. In many ways I think it expands further from the more pointillist, retro-futuristic Davidovsky composition and explores the more fluid nature of the piano, combining it with often very fluid electronic sounds from the tape track:


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

DaveM said:


> One has to ask what the backstory is for offering the Lachemann 'work' as a piano piece in the first place. After all, one doesn't need to know how to play the piano or even how to read piano notation to create it. Virtually anyone could come up with something similar. This forum is Talk Classical. Are there no longer any parameters that distinguish classical music from random sounds? Could it not be said that random dinks, docks, clicks, dings, dongs are closer to primitive attempts to present sounds back in the Stone Age than some kind of a modern positive, innovative progression of classical music?
> 
> *Why would someone like myself care? *Well, classical music has always had something magical about it. Something that I personally believe transcends any other genre of music, as much as I may love some of the latter. The composers that created it ran the gamut from the level of remarkably talented to that of genius. It took incredible education often from a very early age to create classical music. This often required an understanding of all the instruments of the orchestra and usually a mastering of one or more of them.
> 
> So, standing by while this Lechemann work work is presented as having significance in the classical music world would be an insult to the latter and an acknowledgement that it is okay to dumb down the definition of what classical music is considered to be. Also, doing so sets a precedent that composing classical music can mean nothing more than coming up with a random combination of random sounds, an activity that requires no education in the genre and, at worse, no discernible skill.


Some are fighting for the perfection.






Other for the destruction and the chaos.

(no video here…)

We are embracing the first, we sent zum Teufel the second. YES WE CARE, my dearest! You care, I care! We care for the man in the first video and every other in this category and level.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Hammerless" Debussy is merely a metaphor for not spoiling the mood or atmosphere of his music with too percussive of an attack or articulation that is jarring in its effects. It's a descriptive word that pianists have used over the years with regard to playing the composer, and some pianists simply do not have a sensitive enough touch, and the way they articulate Debussy may not create the right colors or mood or atmosphere because their articulation is too sharp. Sensitivity of touch can vary greatly from one pianist to another. I would consider Arrau's Debussy as essentially "hammerless," though there's always bound to be some sense of the hammers hitting the strings because of the nature of the instrument's mechanism:






I would not describe this as essentially "hammerless" Debussy when it's played as objectively as this and banging the poetry out of it:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have mixed feelings about the piano. It's the most "Western' of instruments, and it is a harmony instrument; it can play chords, unlike most of the other orchestral instruments, and it can play melodies, but it is limited expressively in this capacity, since it cannot "bend" notes like a violin or oboe, or do expressive vibrato. Because of this limitation, it has a bias towards the "harmony" aspect.
It is also a solo instrument. Most orchestral instruments are single-note, and designed for ensemble playing. Unless they are featured in a concerto setting, they remain 'team player' instruments. Hence, the long line of piano virtuosos (See Harold C. Shonberg's book:



Thus, the virtuoso tradition, full of ego and bombast, was born. This is another "personality" factor which makes the piano very "Western."
I basically "blame" the piano for changing jazz into an unrecognizable, fully assimilated 'white man's music.' This is because jazz was invented by African American musicians on portable, cheap hand-held instruments like trumpets, clarinets, flutes, and saxophones. It started as a very vocally-inflected music, with bent notes, "growling" notes, and was melodically driven and rhythmically driven. The "harmony" frameworks it used for these forays were often tin-pan alley "standard" pop songs of the day, very formulaic skeletons: I Got Rhythm, Tea For Two, blues progressions, and other relatively simple frameworks. These were useful for the improvisation which embellished them; the songs themselves were not as important as what was played over the top of them.
As the piano gradually worked its way in to jazz, jazz began to get more complex harmonically. Before you knew it, we had a new crop of "jazz virtuosos" like Bud Powell, Erroll Gardner, Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Dave Brubeck, and others, who were changing jazz into a harmonically complex Westernized form. Soon, "jazz" themes appeared in movies (James Bond, Pink Panther) and TV shows (Peter Gun, Perry Mason, Mannix, Mission: Impossible, Patty Duke, etc.).
Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, Art Blakey, Max Roach, and Ornette Coleman tried to reverse this trend, 'take jazz back from the white man', and make a more melodically-driven, less harmonically complex jazz which was truer to its African origins.
As well, the piano forced the electric guitar into a harmonic role. George Van Eps called the guitar a "lap piano." Only later did the guitar fulfill its potential as a melodic lead instrument with the advent of solid-body guitars, distortion, and string-bending.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Even more so, I find there's a real 'hammerless' quality that can apply to big chunks of Dench's piano sonata, especially at the beginning:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

shirime said:


>


The worst sounding fortepiano I've heard. But I cannot possibly believe it ever sound this bad when it was originally made regardless of any special pedal effects it had. It sounds terrible. Awful. Unmusical. And people sit at these things playing it with its horrible sound and they think it's authentic. Well, it's not authentic. This fortepiano with its rattle in the bass strings could not have possibly sounded this bad when it was a relatively new instrument. After 200 years, some of these historic instruments simply cannot be properly repaired or regulated. "Yeah, it's great!" I don't think so.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2019)

eugeneonagain said:


> Personally I agree with Woodduck about the thread being used by Shirime to shoehorn-in another highly-idiosyncratic work.


I apologise if my posts are unwelcome here. I was under the assumption that it was okay to illustrate my thoughts on the piano and respond to the OP's own sentiments with examples of piano music that I enjoy. If there are people causing trouble, then I would suggest talking to a moderator about it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> The best worst sounding fortepiano I've ever heard. But I cannot possibly believe that it ever sound this bad when it was originally made regardless of any special pedal effects it supposedly had. It sounds terrible. Awful. Unmusical. And people sit at these things playing it with its horrible sound and they think it's authentic. Well, it's not authentic. This fortepiano could not have possibly sounded this bad when it was a relatively new instrument.


It's a bit out of tune, I think, but I would put it to the rather unmusical playing and poor recording quality rather than the quality of the instrument itself. As far as I can tell, this is just a demonstration of the different effects possible on this instrument, particularly the bassoon pedal that 'prepares' the bass register with paper to make the buzzing sound.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Not a hammerless keyboard:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

.................


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

shirime said:


> I apologise if my posts are unwelcome here. I was under the assumption that it was okay to illustrate my thoughts on the piano and respond to the OP's own sentiments with examples of piano music that I enjoy. If there are people causing trouble, then I would suggest talking to a moderator about it.


We have an amazing conversation here, my friend. I see no reason for apologies. You like what you like, some of us we don't like it. That's it.

What I find irrational (not with you personally) is that the friends of modern musical expression find almost every single work of their beloved composers and interpreters ok. I have never sheen A SINGLE POST which is against the composer or the musician. If someone, who has no idea about music, read you, dear friends, he will instantly believe that this kind of music is the best and most perfect in the human history. This fact makes your arguments weak. *In the art we have also the rejection.* This habit to praise everything, is for me something like a hypocrisy without a reason. If someone has told us "look at this piece of sh..." when this guy tried to destroy the piano I believe that your arguments should had more impact to us. Cheers to beautiful Australia!


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2019)

Dimace said:


> We have an amazing conversation here, my friend. I see no reason for apologies. You like what you like, some of us we don't like it. That's it.
> 
> What I find irrational (not with you personally) is that the friends of modern musical expression find almost every single work of their beloved composers and interpreters ok. I have never sheen A SINGLE POST which is against the composer or the musician. If someone, who has no idea about music, read you, dear friends, he will instantly believe that this kind of music is the best and most perfect in the human history. This fact makes your arguments weak. *In the art we have also the rejection.* This habit to praise everything, is for me something like a hypocrisy without a reason. If someone has told us "look at this piece of sh..." when this guy tried to destroy the piano I believe that your arguments should had more impact to us. Cheers to beautiful Australia!


Of course, I am interested in good performances as well, just so you know. I find Nicolas Hodges to be one of the leading interpreters of contemporary repertoire and his performances of Ferneyhough's work are especially what I consider to be definitive. I _could_ write a bunch of reviews of interpretations of Sciarrino's sonatas, Ligeti's etudes, or a comparison of different performances of the Davidovsky piece I posted earlier, but I am discussing repertoire rather than interpretation in this thread. I try to post my favourite performances when there are more than one available on youtube.

On composers: I have criticised Lachenmann's music in this thread, by the way, pointing out what I don't like about Geuro. I have also criticised George Crumb's inside-piano writing. I do believe there are fans of modern music who would be similarly critical of composers and musicians in the way I have been.

Cheers to beautiful Germany! Went to Berlin for the first time in December; loved it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

In defense of the unanimity and vibrant expressive power of the piano:


----------



## ojoncas (Jan 3, 2019)

Hammerklavier is not the best example when it comes to depth of sound imo, it is more of a very technical and pushing-the-limits type of piece. 

If you want a sonata that is MADE for a piano, exploring its depth in sounds, textures, I would choose a well-played (very hard to find) Rondo from Beethoven’s 21st sonata.

I almost want to say that the piano was MADE for THIS piece, but this might be going a bit too far into personal preferences.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2019)

shirime said:


> I apologise if my posts are unwelcome here. I was under the assumption that it was okay to illustrate my thoughts on the piano and respond to the OP's own sentiments with examples of piano music that I enjoy.


_Any _opinion on the piano, including those offering examples to illustrate, should surely be welcome here. Not only is there no need to apologise, what _is _unwelcome is any suggestion that your posts are not relevant and the insinuation you have some ulterior motive or illegitimate agenda in posting them.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> Personally I agree with Woodduck about the thread being used by Shirime to shoehorn-in another highly-idiosyncratic work. It's not that the works are all bad or 'not music' - though some are truly abysmal - but it's its pretty tiresome having such pieces of performance art constantly paraded with the dubiously 'sincere' question: "I'd like to know what people think of it..." This itself is like a piece of performance art with the name: _Taking the Rise_.


A personal view but not an easy one to understand. For me, in any thread of any length and life, there tend to be strands of the discussion that interest me and other strands that don't (perhaps they seem overly academic or technical for me, for example, of perhaps they try to hard to legislate and "pin things down") but that doesn't matter - I can skip the posts and strands that don't interest me.

Personally, I find many of Shirime's example posts interesting and valid ways of illustrating a point that he wants to make (even though they are not always points I agree with and are sometimes not directions that interest me). Is this trying to "shoehorn" anything into the discussion ... and what does "shoehorn" mean in this context? It sounds like a criticism but it describes a behaviour that we all do when making a point in a thread (shoehorning our ideas into the thread). Maybe we should all stop posting?

But, no, the problem is that Shirime's suggestions - presumably music he is interested in - can irritate some to the extent that some members can't just ignore them in the same way that we all do when someone posts in a way that doesn't engage us. It is fine, I guess, to not like some or all of these examples (I don't like some of them, either, but don't mind learning that they exist) and even to say so if you need. But the guy has the right to post and I am among a good few who find many of these posts interesting.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

That's great. Since we've established that any opinion is welcome, I have given one and I'll maintain it even when trampled by those following the extraordinarily elastic MacLeod approach: everything is right, yet everything is wrong; black is white, white is black; I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it... _ad nauseam_.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> A personal view but not an easy one to understand. For me, in any thread of any length and life, there tend to be strands of the discussion that interest me and other strands that don't (perhaps they seem overly academic or technical for me, for example, of perhaps they try to hard to legislate and "pin things down") but that doesn't matter - I can skip the posts and strands that don't interest me.
> 
> Personally, I find many of Shirime's example posts interesting and valid ways of illustrating a point that he wants to make (even though they are not always points I agree with and are sometimes not directions that interest me). Is this trying to "shoehorn" anything into the discussion ... and what does "shoehorn" mean in this context? It sounds like a criticism but it describes a behaviour that we all do when making a point in a thread (shoehorning our ideas into the thread). Maybe we should all stop posting?
> 
> But, no, the problem is that Shirime's suggestions - presumably music he is interested in - can irritate some to the extent that some members can't just ignore them in the same way that we all do when someone posts in a way that doesn't engage us. It is fine, I guess, to not like some or all of these examples (I don't like some of them, either, *but don't mind learning that they exist)* and even to say so if you need. But the guy has the right to post and I am among a good few who find many of these posts interesting.


Perfekt!! A piece of Information or more Knowledge never harm!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

shirime said:


> I apologise if my posts are unwelcome here. I was under the assumption that it was okay to illustrate my thoughts on the piano and respond to the OP's own sentiments with examples of piano music that I enjoy. If there are people causing trouble, then I would suggest talking to a moderator about it.


Did I say 'don't post'? I merely explained what you are doing, I didn't plan to start a campaign involving any moderators.

They're not interested anyway. They only see your mild-and-meek public mask.

(countdown to post-removal...10, 9, 8....)


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I backed off from this thread when things began to get too argumentative. However, I'm a devotee of the piano, whether classical or jazz, for its range of voices and capacity to carry complex harmonies. That said, the voice varies between instruments and makers. I find the brassy, metallic tone of some pianos just a little wearing. But in general, play me something, almost anything, on a piano and I'm a contented soul.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ I also backed away but then it _seemed _to have recovered its basically constructive feel ... I was wrong, it seems, and I wish I hadn't posted. This forum seems to be becoming tricky and rather dark compared to how it was in the sunny days of a year ago.

I do love the piano and feel it is the most versatile instrument we have. When I think of what Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann did with it, it is clear to me that we have no other single instrument so capable of expressing miraculously "deep" things. Not that I stop at Schumann, of course. I do also like many of the forebears of the piano - the whole development from the earliest instruments to what we have today (including the choice we have to play reconstructions of older instruments) shows a consistent development to an extent that I don't think any other instrument can match.

The other side of this is the very large number of truly great pianists that we have enjoyed since half decent recordings became available.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Because someone was asking about Chopin nocturnes I dug out this attractive CD called _Notturni_, which I recommend enthusiastically to people who like "conservative" piano music


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

This is an interesting thread. Its creator has thought of good reasons to be critical of the piano. I have to admit I never thought of the piano's inability to sustain a tone (except in a limited way through pedal I guess) as a shortcoming, or thought of it much at all. Yes, it replaces sustained notes with flurries of different notes. It can do so much else. It has the greatest range and versatility of any instrument. It's the one instrument you might want in your livingroom.

Piano doesn't sound percussive to me unless the music is written that way. My first forays into chamber music were made easier by the piano trio form. The liquid sound of a piano was to me just what the dry harsh sound of strings needed to accompany them. (I've since learned to greatly appreciate all-string forms of chamber music and don't feel that way about their sound any more).

The piano would scare me to learn more than any other instrument because I can't imagine being able to find multiple keys at once.


----------



## sevennotes (Dec 12, 2018)

I was not very interested in music but my parents wants me to learn piano. They find me a teacher and start my piano lessons. In beginning, it was very difficult for me to remember chords names, and set my fingers on keyboard, but after some time I enjoy the playing piano. My instructor is very good he helps me to learn piano with fun.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Obviously you subscribe to the fresh, courageous and bourgeoisie-provoking notion that anything can be art or music if someone merely says that it is.


If you get three people around a table talking about art, and there's a pitcher of water on the table, sooner or later someone will point to the pitcher of water and say, "This pitcher of water here, for example: is this art?"

It's already part of the conceptual infrastructure; it's too late to turn back.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> If you get three people around a table talking about art, and there's a pitcher of water on the table, sooner or later someone will point to the pitcher of water and say, "This pitcher of water here, for example: is this art?"
> 
> It's already part of the conceptual infrastructure; it's too late to turn back.


If one has never followed the lemmings, there is no need to turn back.

You may turn any way you please.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If you get three people around a table talking about art, and there's a pitcher of water on the table, sooner or later someone will point to the pitcher of water and say, "This pitcher of water here, for example: is this art?"
> 
> It's already part of the conceptual infrastructure; it's too late to turn back.


Not even Marcel Duchamp would have said that the pitcher of water on the table is a work of art, any more than Cage said that 4'33'' of silence is music. Duchamp may have been open to the idea of taking it to a gallery, possibly signing it Rosa Levy, and THEN it becomes art.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Not even Marcel Duchamp would have said that the pitcher of water on the table is a work of art, any more than Cage said that 4'33'' of silence is music. Duchamp may have been open to the idea of taking it to a gallery, possibly signing it Rosa Levy, and THEN it becomes art.


Actually, does anyone dispute that a pitcher may be a work of art? The real question is whether it becomes one by virtue of being exhibited as one.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Not even Marcel Duchamp would have said that the pitcher of water on the table is a work of art, any more than Cage said that 4'33'' of silence is music. Duchamp may have been open to the idea of taking it to a gallery, possibly signing it Rosa Levy, and THEN it becomes art.


 Just the _consideration_ of the pitcher of water as art is enough to _conceptually_ transform it into art. This is because we have "divinely contemplated it", as we do all art.

Why should its status as art depend on such gross material things as signatures, exhibitions, public opinion, and the gallery system?

"Art" can be mistakenly seen as manifestation of form, or it can be seen as "pure being" which is connected with all being in the realm of the unmanifest. Thus, all "art" comes from divine contemplation, which is synonymous with being.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I kind of feel ready to just give up on art you know, the whole culture of painting and sculpture is so tightly linked to galleries, museums and auction houses, the only value seems to be the market value it seems to me, works of art are just decorative luxury goods.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Not even Marcel Duchamp would have said that the pitcher of water on the table is a work of art, any more than Cage said that 4'33'' of silence is music.


On the contrary, based on an evaluation of Cage's writings on silence, that is how James Pritchett explains how Cage perceived 4'33" in his essay 'What Silence Taught John Cage. The story of 4'33":

http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/
_
"4′ 33″, the silent piece, is easily John Cage's most famous creation. *I would say that anyone who recognizes Cage's name knows that he wrote a piece of music that consists entirely of silence.*

The silence that Cage spoke of is something that is accessible to each and every person at any time. We cannot help it from happening: moments of that deep silence appear for us spontaneously (if briefly, perhaps) for various reasons. You can see this yourself if you reflect over your experience and look for such moments. For myself, it was the silence that happened when I stepped out and heard the wind in the trees, forceful, calling me into the woods. It was the silence that happened when I held in my arms a loved one who was suffering. It was the silence that happened when, opening the door and expecting to see the morning stars, I saw the falling snow instead."_

Personally, I find the concept of 4'33" interesting and meaningful as described just above, but not as a 'work' or as music. People have made far more out of it as a work of art than Cage ever intended.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Please stay on topic, politely.

A number of off topic posts have been removed for moderator discussion.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2019)

eugeneonagain said:


> Since we've established that any opinion is welcome


I don't think we have.



eugeneonagain said:


> the extraordinarily elastic MacLeod approach: everything is right, yet everything is wrong; black is white, white is black; I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it... _ad nauseam_.


Elastic? That's stretching it a bit. 
What did I say?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, based on an evaluation of Cage's writings on silence, that is how James Pritchett explains how Cage perceived 4'33" in his essay 'What Silence Taught John Cage. The story of 4'33":
> 
> http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/
> _
> ...


I think it's more complicated than that -- the way he got John Tudor to behave is a bit like taking background sounds or silence, and putting them signed into a concert hall, just like Duchamp took a urinal, signed it and put it into a gallery.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Open Book said:


> This is an interesting thread. .....
> 
> The piano would scare me to learn more than any other instrument because I can't imagine being able to find multiple keys at once.


Multiple keys AND the darned pedals!


----------

