A weird thought about classical music...

[kluurs]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

It would depend on how the performance was advertised.

I’m speaking more to a slower or faster tempo. Richter did this a bit and got away with it. Jazz is changing notes and often syncopation.

I like playing a piece by Isaac Albeniz a bit slower than what is typically heard. I think it captures the beauty and soul of the piece better. Listening to recordings from classical artists in the early 1900s, we hear them playing faster than most modern musicians. I don’t think audiences get to appreciate the beauty that is there to be experienced at some of those faster speeds.

[Doctor Phibes]

Much of what is now considered classic jazz was recorded in a way that ensured that no copyright was due to the original composer. This is America, after all, and what higher goal is there? They took the original chord changes, and then wrote a new tune over the top. It's also funny that while lots of people tried to stylistically copy, say, Charlie Parker or Miles Davis, it would generally not be considered a compliment if you were said to be indistinguishable from them.

I don't really understand the classical obsession with playing things 'correctly'. It's fine to want to speak the language of an art-form, but we shouldn't expect everybody to speak it with the same accent.

[Horace]

I am sure every teacher is different, but I suspect one could walk a good long ways through this life without encountering anybody who would frown at a musically coherent performance of any given classical piece that happened to add some non-indicated rubato or changed an ornament. And there are literally no teachers or even reasonable people who know anything about classical music who believe that a performance is 100% dictated by the score, and therefore each performance approximates perfection in an objectively measurable way. We shouldn't confuse some ideas thrown out there for the sake of discussion in this thread, with widely held dogma.

[Axtremus]

@LuFins-Dad said in A weird thought about classical music...:

… how to most accurately reproduce these pieces...

What other art does this? You don't take painting classes to learn how to reproduce Monet's Water Lillies. You don't take sculpting classes to learn to recreate Bernini's Apollo and Daphne... Classical music really comes down to just reproducing the same pieces the same way ad nauseam...

I talked about this years ago, and call the classical concert artists “cover artists.”

[Horace]

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

[George K]

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

"He played all of the notes and none of the music."

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

Technical accuracy in a piece is a very low bar. There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate". I am surprised this idea that classical performances are judged by technical accuracy, is being taken seriously here. It's a ridiculous notion.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

Technical accuracy in a piece is a very low bar. There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate". I am surprised this idea that classical performances are judged by technical accuracy, is being taken seriously here. It's a ridiculous notion.

Yet plenty of people go in for it.

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

Technical accuracy in a piece is a very low bar. There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate". I am surprised this idea that classical performances are judged by technical accuracy, is being taken seriously here. It's a ridiculous notion.

Yet plenty of people go in for it.

I guess I might accept that perspective from someone who's never seriously pursued a musical instrument. One encounters "music" and "expression" very early after learning their first piece, and realizing it could be played more musically, if not more accurately. Accuracy would be metronomic, in fact, and anti-musical. Which, nobody plays. So I don't see how this is a common perspective.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

Technical accuracy in a piece is a very low bar. There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate". I am surprised this idea that classical performances are judged by technical accuracy, is being taken seriously here. It's a ridiculous notion.

Yet plenty of people go in for it.

I guess I might accept that perspective from someone who's never seriously pursued a musical instrument. One encounters "music" and "expression" very early after learning their first piece, and realizing it could be played more musically, if not more accurately. Accuracy would be metronomic, in fact, and anti-musical. Which, nobody plays. So I don't see how this is a common perspective.

I dunno exactly how common, but few people seriously pursue a musical instrument.

[George K]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate".

Unless you're playing Mahler, I'm told.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Yeah, describing classical musicians as mere technicians is silly, clearly there's a heck of a lot more going on.

In my experience the level of technical expertise required for a professional career in classical or orchestral music is a lot higher than in pop music. I know people who've gone into both areas, and there's really no comparison. And possibly that's why people who play pop music have a tendency to dismiss classical musicians as non-artistic, which is really ignorant.

[Renauda]

@George-K said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

There aren't really that many markings on the score that one has to adhere to in order to achieve something defensible as "accurate".

Unless you're playing Mahler, I'm told.

I have been told similar about 20th century music in general. One of my piano teachers who was an accomplished local concert pianist herself, told me that one of the difficulties in learning 20 century repertoire is that much of it doesn’t even sound like music until it can be played near or at speed so that the phrasing can be coherently articulated. That alone puts much of it beyond the reach of only the most doggedly determined (and talented) students.

I agree with what you, Kluurs, Horace and Aqua have written here on this subject. Some weeks back you posted two videos featuring the Liszt scholar, Alan Walker. I was taken very much by his presentation on Liszt as teacher and pedagogue. It was clear from the words of Liszt’s students that the maestro himself was interested in them playing the music the notation described, not the notation itself. I am of the opinion that if we could turn the clock back and actually listen to how Liszt played, he was more akin to a Horowitz, Cziffra or even Earl Wild than a Wilhelm Kempf or Alfred Brendel. I think pianists like Argerich, Katsaris and a few others have done a good job during their careers of returning classical music to its more individualistic roots. Owing to them the current young generation of pianists like Buniatishvili, Wang, Trifonov and Chamayou to name a few are putting a fresh sound back into the classics.

[LuFins Dad]

@Aqua-Letifer said in A weird thought about classical music...:

@Horace said in A weird thought about classical music...:

And opera singers are cover artists, and ballet dancers are cover artists, etc. If anybody wants to tamp down the respect people have for those who choose to learn an instrument and play classical compositions as well as they can, they are free to use their words to frame that activity as dismissively as they can. Meanwhile, the performers will continue to create some art in the moment, which maybe they and others will enjoy and find value in.

Just to be clear, I think a lot of great self-expression can come from playing classical music. I just don't think the entire worth of a performance should be measured by technical accuracy.

No, but we lend oversized credence to extremely small differences. Over emphasizing dynamic changes… small differences in rubato.. Etc… Frankly, the closest that anyone has come to an analogy is the Shakespearian actors. But I think that we can all agree that there are far bigger differences between Michael Gambon and Anthony Hopkins King Lear than there are Van Cliburn’s and Trifonov’s Tchaikovsky #1….