is lang lang good or not?

[jre58591]

hahaha, your idiocy never ceases to amuse me.

[opus10no2]

I'm not laughing.

Pitiful, truly pitiful.

[jre58591]

well, i am laughing, and so is the rest if the forum.

[opus10no2]

Well, you do have an incredible personality, and stunningly toned buttocks, but despite all of this, you still disrespect Lang Lang.

[elevateme_returns]

I think it's that he plays for the audience, not for himself. He exaggerates nuances for the benefit of the audience, and shows off in many areas. I think his Carnegie Hall debut was different though, because the room would've been filled with knowledgeable musicians and non-musicians.

surely exaggerating is better in more romantic pieces like rachmaninov etc?

[elevateme_returns]

and i know you all say hes just a showman, but he does play an awful lot of liszt... so surely showmanship fits?

[Kassaa]

and i know you all say hes just a showman, but he does play an awful lot of liszt... so surely showmanship fits?

No, Liszt is NOT about showmanship.

[cygnusdei]

Why don't we settle this once and for all with a thumbs-up or -down vote?

[nicco]

No, Liszt is NOT about showmanship.

Agreed. I feel Liszt is more like advanced poetry.

[gruffalo]

Agreed. I feel Liszt is more like advanced poetry.

it depends, really. Liszt evidently has two very distinct aspects of personality in his music. he created a lot of his music to show off technique and to "entertain" in a way, but there is a very deep side to him as a composer which is evident in his religious works, the b minor sonata, annees de pelerinage. I dont mind lang lang butchering the HRs, because they are showpieces IMO (i still like them).

[dutch_pianist]

is Lang Lang good or not?

I think he's very talented. I heard that when hearing him play Mozart, he played it very lively and not boring at all, like some pianists do. He has his own voice, his own way, has an original repertoire (except some hackneyed pieces such as Träumerei), for example the Chinese pieces. And I think it's also very important that he's just an upright guy. When I see him teaching, I want to have a teacher like him who's not totally self absorbed.

He also plays pieces such as the Don Juan fantasy. Why anyone takes the time to study this dreadfull piece, I don't know.

Maybe, in 20 years time, he slows down a bit, so I can keep up with him.

and those facial expressions... Pianists such as argerich, Horowitz and Rubinstein never did that. but i think a lot of pianists nowadays don't seem to bother how they look at the piano.

[nicco]

it depends, really. Liszt evidently has two very distinct aspects of personality in his music. he created a lot of his music to show off technique and to "entertain" in a way, but there is a very deep side to him as a composer which is evident in his religious works, the b minor sonata, annees de pelerinage. I dont mind lang lang butchering the HRs, because they are showpieces IMO (i still like them).

Yes true, some selected pieces appears to be more of empty entertaining value, with pure virtuosity and "show-off"- like qualities. But as you say, his deep side, with works like Dante and the b minor, is absolutely fantastic.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

and i know you all say hes just a showman, but he does play an awful lot of liszt... so surely showmanship fits?

Just a hunch, but I suspect Liszt was not as much of a ham actor as Lang Lang.

it depends, really. Liszt evidently has two very distinct aspects of personality in his music. he created a lot of his music to show off technique and to "entertain" in a way, but there is a very deep side to him as a composer which is evident in his religious works, the b minor sonata, annees de pelerinage.

Hard to argue with. It pains me that many people still choose to view Liszt solely as a purveyor of flashy trash.

[el nino]

i like him very very much. beautiful sound,so many colors,stunning technique and imagination. also,these facial expressions dont bother me at all. so my thumb is up for him

[counterpoint]

It pains me that many people still choose to view Liszt solely as a purveyor of flashy trash.

There must be a reason... 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Ignorance, and/or an inability to look past the Hungarian Rhapsodies.

[mephisto]

The hungarian rhapsodies are actually very beautifull. The lassans are full of amazing melodies and interesting harmonies, and the so are the friskas. Extiement is an emotion to.

What I consider Liszt's non serious works are thing like Grand Gallop Cromatique, etc wich is just a show piece.

Liszt has so many sides, and one has to know them all.

The show-man, the gypsy, the priest, the futurist and the philosopher. Listen to his late pieces they are abseloutly amazing. I am thinking about pieces like Unstern and La Lugubre Gondola, these pieces makes me cry.

But Ronde is of course right, Liszt is much more than the hungarian rhapsodies, he did after all compose the Sonata. Wich alone makes him a great composer.

[elevateme_returns]

Agreed. I feel Liszt is more like advanced poetry.

i meant the hungarian rhapsodies

[Mozartian]

i think he should stay away from a piano.

LOL touché

His Schumann is nauseating, I wanted to slap him after seeing his vid of the Abegg Variations. *shudder*

[elevateme_returns]

why? whats wrong with his schumann?

[elevateme_returns]

the only thing i dont like about it is the facial expressions. apart from that  is it not a great performance?

[el nino]

LOL touché

His Schumann is nauseating, I wanted to slap him after seeing his vid of the Abegg Variations. *shudder*

his abegg variations are fantastic

[Mozartian]

his abegg variations are fantastic

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

*cough*sputter*hack*cough*

Uuuuuh, no. Good lord, if people consider LL's as "fantastic" interpretations, no wonder so many people hate Schumann. Even *I* would hate him, if LL was truly a "fantastic" interpreter of him.

Admittedly, if I just listen to (and not watch) his Abegg, I can stand it; but I'd NEVER say it's a great interpretation. He is technically brilliant at it, of course.

But in my opinion, his Schumann is disgusting. It's either overly sentimentalized or simply rushed through, with no depth whatsoever in either case. He makes it sound like cheap salon music, though Schumann- when played properly- is anything but that. His Kinderszenen in particular is terrifying- he has some strange ideas about interpreting that piece, heh.

[rach n bach]

*cough*sputter*hack*cough*

I agree here...

Uuuuuh, no. Good lord, if people consider LL's as "fantastic" interpretations, no wonder so many people hate Schumann. Even *I* would hate him, if LL was truly a "fantastic" interpreter of him.

Admittedly, if I just listen to (and not watch) his Abegg, I can stand it; but I'd NEVER say it's a great interpretation. He is technically brilliant at it, of course.

heehee, see the poll...

But in my opinion, his Schumann is disgusting. It's either overly sentimentalized or simply rushed through, with no depth whatsoever in either case. He makes it sound like cheap salon music, though Schumann- when played properly- is anything but that. His Kinderszenen in particular is terrifying- he has some strange ideas about interpreting that piece, heh.

Agreed again, although I think that he makes ALL music sound like "cheap salon music."  He just caters to the masses too much for me.

RnB

[opus10no2]

His Kinderszenen in particular is terrifying- he has some strange ideas about interpreting that piece, heh.

In our day and age, people are aware of the truth about paedophilia, but back then - people were naive.

The truth is, back then, to write a piece about children as an adult, was OK, noone thought about it, but Lang Lang in his post-modern ideological interpretation of this piece utters that which has been left unspoken 'till now, his interpretation lifts the lid and reveals the seethig underbelly of Schumann's extremely perverse psyche.

Open you eyes to Lang Lang also, as his visual representation reveals the truth in what he plays, and sometimes we just don't like the truth.

We must face it, or remain ignorant, as you appear to be.

[Mozartian]

We must face it, or remain ignorant, as you appear to be.

Pot calling the kettle black....

[opus10no2]

In this context your 'hypothesis' holds no weight.

[Mozartian]

In this context your 'hypothesis' holds no weight.

My hypothesis? That was an idiom.

[elevateme_returns]

eh?? i dont get how you think its played like salon music. its wonderfully articulated, and he has a fantastic sense of where the music is going and great ability to make the piano sing and make it sound like it really should. how is it like salon music??

[Mozartian]

eh?? i dont get how you think its played like salon music. its wonderfully articulated, and he has a fantastic sense of where the music is going and great ability to make the piano sing and make it sound like it really should. how is it like salon music??

....

Forget it.

[el nino]

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

*cough*sputter*hack*cough*

Uuuuuh, no. Good lord, if people consider LL's as "fantastic" interpretations, no wonder so many people hate Schumann. Even *I* would hate him, if LL was truly a "fantastic" interpreter of him.

Admittedly, if I just listen to (and not watch) his Abegg, I can stand it; but I'd NEVER say it's a great interpretation. He is technically brilliant at it, of course.

But in my opinion, his Schumann is disgusting. It's either overly sentimentalized or simply rushed through, with no depth whatsoever in either case. He makes it sound like cheap salon music, though Schumann- when played properly- is anything but that. His Kinderszenen in particular is terrifying- he has some strange ideas about interpreting that piece, heh.

ok you are obviously quite dimwitted person. his ideas are beautiful but still they do not distroy the laws of style. if he is such a bad pianist then he would not be the current biggest pianistic star. ok i agree he sometimes exaggerates. but everything he does comes from the hearth and i dont care if he has a crazy coreography or is calm as horowitz,its all about what his music produces. and it produces magic to me. he is the only pianist who has made me cry. that is the biggest thing a pianist can do. 

[phil13]

A bit of extraction is in order.

ok you are obviously quite dimwitted person. 

For stating an opinion? Hmmm, you may not last long on that argument.

his ideas are beautiful but still they do not distroy the laws of style.

I would not state your own opinion as fact after dissing someone else's opinion.

 if he is such a bad pianist then he would not be the current biggest pianistic star.

Um... actually, he's the biggest pianistic star because he has found a way to separate himself from the rest, a way to stand out as a unique performer. And we can at least give him credit for that, for were it otherwise this discussion would not be taking place.

Personally, I think his musicality is nothing compared to many pianists in the past as well as some in the present.

ok i agree he sometimes exaggerates. but everything what he does comes from the hearth and i dont care if he has a crazy coreography or is calm as horowitz,its all about what his music produces. and it produces magic to me.

 

Of course it comes from the heart! How do you suppose anybody would play if they didn't feel any passion for the instrument? And based on his motions at the bench, I'd say Lang Lang has a thing for the instrument...that just might go beyond their strictly professional relationship. 

he is the only pianist who has made me cry. that is the biggest thing a pianist can do. 

Taking breath away is, to me, even more powerful.

Besides, Lang Lang has made me cry too...for different reasons. 

Phil

[opus10no2]

My hypothesis? That was an idiom.

Just because I am 'hot' does not mean I am either a pot or a kettle.

[Mozartian]

ok you are obviously quite dimwitted person.

I obviously don't have an intellect at the same level of yours, tis true.

his ideas are beautiful but still they do not distroy the laws of style.

"But" don't destroy the laws of style? Are you sure you worded that the way you intended?

if he is such a bad pianist then he would not be the current biggest pianistic star.

Charmingly naive opinion. I suppose you would also think that Britney Spears is talented.

he is the only pianist who has made me cry.

He makes me cry, too.

[Mozartian]

Just because I am 'hot' does not mean I am either a pot or a kettle.

Go date a psychologist, you lunatic.

[opus10no2]

The first to bite is always the one with the most hunge