Piano Forum
Piano Board => Performance => Topic started by: levdeych on December 16, 2013, 02:20:10 AM
-
What do people think about presenting classical piano music with accompanying video interpretation. Here is an example of Rachmaninoff's Elegia
-
What do people think about presenting classical piano music with accompanying video interpretation. Here is an example of Rachmaninoff's Elegia
I think it's a wonderful idea. It has been done, of course, but too many videos accompanying classical works - particularly non-orchestral works - tend to focus on the mechanics as if the only audience are a group of technique critics.
Music today has video, and often very good video, as part of the package. I see no reason why serious piano music shouldn't be given the same treatment.
-
I think it's a wonderful idea. It has been done, of course, but too many videos accompanying classical works - particularly non-orchestral works - tend to focus on the mechanics as if the only audience are a group of technique critics.
Music today has video, and often very good video, as part of the package. I see no reason why serious piano music shouldn't be given the same treatment.
I do agree with you. So what do you think about the video in my example, is it something similar to what you have in mind?
-
I do agree with you. So what do you think about the video in my example, is it something similar to what you have in mind?
I don't especially have anything in mind. There are a lot of options and I wouldn't like to restrict it. Your video was good, btw, but only one of many possible approaches.
-
I found the beginning of the video distracting, wondering what they're doing, what the point was. And then the baseball cap. What was that all about? The visual had very little to do with the music so it wasn't helpful to illuminate the musical ideas.
As a musician, I hate having distracting imagery since it makes hearing harder to do. As I watched it, I quickly started typing this reply so that I wouldn't have to watch it. What I was hearing and what I was seeing were two different things so it was inducing cognitive dissonance.
-
it was inducing cognitive dissonance.
I thought in your case that was natural, not induced. :P
I take it you don't watch pop videos either. Have you seen Fantasia, Allegro ma non troppo, or Aria?
-
I thought in your case that was natural, not induced. :P
::)
I take it you don't watch pop videos either. Have you seen Fantasia, Allegro ma non troppo, or Aria?
Never seen those. What are the last two?
-
Never seen those. What are the last two?
Allegro ma non troppo is an Italian film along something of the same line as Fantasia with animated sequences illustrating various pieces. Many people regard it as a step up creatively.
Aria is a film where a variety of leading directors were given free reign to do what's essentially a video clip for an aria of their choice. Ken Russell, Robert Altman, Nicholas Roeg etc. Well worth checking out.
-
I found the beginning of the video distracting, wondering what they're doing, what the point was. And then the baseball cap. What was that all about? The visual had very little to do with the music so it wasn't helpful to illuminate the musical ideas.
Well, I do not think I could satisfactory explain the basic idea of this particular video to someone who did not grasp it at once. It is like explaining an abstract painting, but I can try to give one interpretation of what is happening. In the beginning of the video someone appears in the empty hall as a white spot, a ghost. Somebody playing the piano, but we do not see who. "The ghost" in everyday causal clothes with a baseball cap, emphasizing the causal nature of the dress, slowly approaching the piano. It is clear to us that this person is longing to touch the piano. Eventually, he opens the instrument, prepares to play, and, at this instant everything changes. He is now in concert clothes, and darkness surrounding him is changed to bright white light. He is in paradize, if you want. He is happy. But he knows that he cannot stay there forever, therefore his happiness is still quite sad. Eventually, the time comes when he has to leave. He closes the piano, gets his baseball cup, which is a symbol of his life without music, and vanishes.
I am not the author of this video, but to me this story that I invented agreed very well with the musical ideas of this piece the way they were presented to me.
I do not know if I convince you in anything, but this is my best try.
-
Well, I do not think I could satisfactory explain the basic idea of this particular video to someone who did not grasp it at once.
And neither can one explain the meaning of the music if somebody doesn't grasp it at once.
Do you have any idea what an "elegy" is? It's a mournful or plaintive poem or song, especially a lament for the dead.
Can you understand now that the contents of the video clip have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the contents of the music? :)
-
Can you understand now that the contents of the video clip have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the contents of the music? :)
You just fail to see the connection.
I'd also suggest that the relationship need not be as literal as you imply, nor need the music be the main idea - it may only support, in mood and tone, the idea that is in the film.
And surely it has as much or more to do with the music as a video of someone playing a steinway, which is the bog standard for ever piano clip out there.
-
You just fail to see the connection.
I'd also suggest that the relationship need not be as literal as you imply, nor need the music be the main idea - it may only support, in mood and tone, the idea that is in the film.
And surely it has as much or more to do with the music as a video of someone playing a steinway, which is the bog standard for ever piano clip out there.
It doesn't have to be literal, but I surely think that it should have something that makes you contemplate; thoughts turned inward, not focused on the flashy material world we see every day, otherwise it will lack spiritual balance, harmony.
-
I surely think that it should have something that makes you contemplate; thoughts turned inward,
What prompts you to do that is a matter of yourself. I found it quite contemplative. But then I find many things spur me to contemplation.
-
I am not the author of this video, but to me this story that I invented agreed very well with the musical ideas of this piece the way they were presented to me.
I do not know if I convince you in anything, but this is my best try.
Since I was familiar with the piece long before I watched the video, I already had a conception of the musical ideas. The piece starts off with an accompaniment pattern that sets the mood before the melody comes in. And that's where things really diverge with the visual.
If I were to direct a music video with this piece, I would have used a much simpler story. Someone would be shown in sadness and anguish, and soon she looks up with a glimmer of hope as it rises from the horizon. She basks in it. She becomes enveloped in it. But that ecstasy is short lived. And she realizes she's all alone again as the path before her is toward the dawning skies and the last light reflects off the cold fog.
At no point in the video will there be footage of a pianist playing the piano. There's nothing romantic about it to be included in the video.
-
What prompts you to do that is a matter of yourself. I found it quite contemplative. But then I find many things spur me to contemplation.
We cannot do whatever we want. Rachmaninoff gave the piece a title. If that is not enough, he also gave a magnificent rendition that gives me shivers, even when it comes to us through a piano roll. No doubt there about the spirit of this piece.
Anything that accompanies Rachmaninoff's Elegy should be in line with the associations in the piece itself because of its added spiritual value. Anything that is not in line with these associations distracts and is therefore not Art, but a misplaced effort to attract attention.
-
We cannot do whatever we want. Rachmaninoff gave the piece a title. If that is not enough, he also gave a magnificent rendition that gives me shivers, even when it comes to us through a piano roll. No doubt there about the spirit of this piece.
Rachmaninoff's rendition of this piece is magnificent, no doubt about it. But does it mean that no other interpretations are allowed? Surely not. There are 100 of different Elegias out there, which differ from each other tremendously, even if judging by the total time, which goes from about 4:32 in Rachmaninoff's performance to 6:30 in Gavrilov's rendition. These different times reflect different moods, different degrees of sadness and gloominess in the piece. And all these different approaches are there in the notes. It would have been a very gloomy world indeed if everyone played everything like everybody else.
-
Do you have any idea what an "elegy" is? It's a mournful or plaintive poem or song, especially a lament for the dead.
Can you understand now that the contents of the video clip have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the contents of the music? :)
I am not sure what prompted you to think that I need to be explained meaning of "elegy", it was quite presumptuous and unnecessary.
As for the content of the video, you, indeed, FAILED TO SEE A CONNECTION. Let me spell it for you. A dead pianist longing to be reunited with his piano appears as a ghost, finds himself basking in the light of paradise while imagining himself sitting once again behind his instrument, only to realize that it cannot last. But this last contact with the keybord gives him some kind of piece and he leaves this world again, this time for ever. How does it contradict to your description of what Elegie is?
-
How does it contradict to your description of what Elegie is?
No need to "spell it out" for me. The music expresses the mourning over a lost beloved one; it's the pain of the ones that were left behind, and not the joy of some ghost who gets the chance to play the piano one last time, however sad he may be in the A sections of the piece. Whatever turn you give to it, the images in the clip just don't match the intended spiritual content of the music by more than one parameter (faulty_damper already indicated something in that direction).
P.S.: The author of this clip should pick another piece of music for his/her purposes, maybe something in the popular genre "New Age", where rejoicing in oneself is more appropriate, but certainly not this emotionally charged piece.
-
I don't especially have anything in mind. There are a lot of options and I wouldn't like to restrict it. Your video was good, btw, but only one of many possible approaches.
Of course, there are many different ways of doing things, but what I meant was "videos with "stories" versus something like this .
-
No need to "spell it out" for me. The music expresses the mourning over a lost beloved one; it's the pain of the ones that were left behind, and not the joy of some ghost who gets the chance to play the piano one last time, however sad he may be in the A sections of the piece. Whatever turn you give to it, the images in the clip just don't match the intended spiritual content of the music by more than one parameter (faulty_damper already indicated something in that direction).
P.S.: The author of this clip should pick another piece of music for his/her purposes, maybe something in the popular genre "New Age", where rejoicing in oneself is more appropriate, but certainly not this emotionally charged piece.
Well, "there are some people to whom you cannot say unless they already know". But this is ok. I should not have tried to "spell out" such a concrete interpretation of the video in question, which simply narrowed the discussion. This is fine, if someone does not like what I personally find interesting and intriguing, we do not have to all like (or dislike) the same things, just as we should not impose our own understanding of any piece of music, especially in such narrow and concrete terms. The beauty of music is that it allows for a wide range of images and ideas.
-
we do not have to all like (or dislike) the same things, just as we should not impose our own understanding of any piece of music, especially in such narrow and concrete terms. The beauty of music is that it allows for a wide range of images and ideas.
Within certain boundaries, yes, but: associations are only useful in Art if they are pure, not learned, artificial, or false/in conflict with other associations within the same context. Neither should the associations require an explanation. As soon as the audience has to do something intellectual to make a link, it's not Art.
P.S.: If you want to know for sure what something is about, ask a child. They are pure in their perception of associations.
Another option is to acquaint oneself with the spirit of other works by the same composer, for example what is considered by many as Rachmaninoff's finest achievement "All-Night Vigil" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Night_Vigil_%28Rachmaninoff%29) for a capella choir.
-
As soon as the audience has to do something intellectual to make a link, it's not Art.
This is the funniest thing I heard in years.
-
This is the funniest thing I heard in years.
There is much truth in it though. Good Art happens. If it's really good, it simply overpowers you. You are in awe, and you don't know why exactly. Only later can you start analyzing the factors that perhaps lead to your state of mind at that moment. :)
-
I want to express my appreciation of this clip. “Elegia” has been played by many famous pianists, and one can find its many interpretations on youTube. It happened that I did not like those which were too “gloomy” with overpowering dramatics. So naturally, when the music started I already got the idea, but I was intrigued by the visual story and did not turn it off. At the moment when the pianist raises his hand to rich to his baseball hat, I was rewarded by new emotions and new understanding of “Elegia”. The clip was telling me that while the music can exist just by itself, we still need a musician to be touched by it. Can you recognize a musician just by looking at him? Music recognizes him first, despite of his jeans, a t-shirt, and a baseball hat. Suddenly "Elegia” tells a story of someone who came, was recognized and gone, but never lost. I listened again through the clip and it was there in music, however without video I would fail to hear it. Thanks for this experience, because even at the concert I usually close me eyes to absorb the sound better.
-
We cannot do whatever we want. Rachmaninoff gave the piece a title. If that is not enough, he also gave a magnificent rendition that gives me shivers, even when it comes to us through a piano roll. No doubt there about the spirit of this piece.
Anything that accompanies Rachmaninoff's Elegy should be in line with the associations in the piece itself because of its added spiritual value. Anything that is not in line with these associations distracts and is therefore not Art, but a misplaced effort to attract attention.
“Film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has to the book I am reading.” - Igor Stravinsky
Just for a different view.
-
“Film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has to the book I am reading.” - Igor Stravinsky
Just for a different view.
Nothing in Rachmaninoff's output can be classified as "film music", especially not this piece. It is entirely self-sufficient and does not need other media to explain its meaning.
Before the author of this clip, I would make a case for getting to know the composer better through his other output before abusing any of his works in a way that is not appropriate. The moment you get to know most of his works, you develop a certain intuition, and you will be able to tell at a glance what he meant (as with a very close friend) and for what you can and can't do with his works: List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Rachmaninoff)
-
Nothing in Rachmaninoff's output can be classified as "film music", especially not this piece.
Before the author of this clip, I would make a case for getting to know the composer better through his other output before abusing any of his works in a way that is not appropriate. The moment you get to know most of his works, you develop a certain intuition, and you will be able to tell at a glance what he meant (as with a very close friend):
List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Rachmaninoff)
You are assuming that the purpose of a video clip with music is for the video to reflect/support the music. That is not necessarily the case - it may be that the music supports the video, or that the two contrast or complement each other.
Rachmaninoff may never have written film music, but his music has provided the background to many films. Often successfully.
-
You are assuming that the purpose of a video clip with music is for the video to reflect/support the music. That is not necessarily the case - it may be that the music supports the video, or that the two contrast or complement each other.
I hold this composer and his music very dear. That is probably my "problem". The clip and the music are in conflict, and it feels like prostitution, not something my friend and spiritual mentor Rachmaninoff deserves. :)
Rachmaninoff may never have written film music, but his music has provided the background to many films. Often successfully.
Oh, but I can easily imagine situations in which it could be used with more dignity than is the case here.
-
I hold this composer and his music very dear. That is probably my "problem". The clip and the music are in conflict, and it feels like prostitution, not something my friend and spiritual mentor Rachmaninoff deserves. :)
I've done far worse things to him than that, and I didn't need anything more than a piano.
And, yes, it is your problem. If you don't like it, don't watch, but Rachmaninoff's music is a gift to the world, not just to you.
Oh, but I can easily imagine situations in which it could be used with more dignity than is the case here.
**** wonders if I should mention one such film (at least) is a porno. :-\
-
@ j_menz
Judging by the poor contemporary concert culture and the declining quality standards in contemporary society as a whole, I am not at all surprised. Just disappointed.
P.S.: Rachmaninoff's works are his testament to us, not a gift with which we can do whatever we want. I think we should at least try to make use of it in accordance with his will and intention.
-
we should at least try to make use of it in accordance with his will and intention.
We dishonour him by limiting ourselves so.
-
We dishonour him by limiting ourselves so.
It's the boundaries that make it so powerful, as is the case with many other things in life that have symbolic value. Take the boundaries away and you are left with nothing but emptiness.
-
It's the boundaries that make it so powerful, as is the case with many other things in life that have symbolic value. Take the boundaries away and you are left with nothing but emptiness.
You'd have made a wonderful 19th century conservative fogey. You were born too late for your calling.
-
We cannot do whatever we want.
But of course we can! When the composer puts his music out there his control is over.
Besides this was done 150 years ago as well, those times that were more "spiritual" as you would probably put it. The means were just more limited. If people those days had only done what was intended by their predecessors what would we have now? New ideas come from existing things, this is what creativity is about. How could anyone see that as a negative thing is beyond me... Sometimes a creation is disturbing because it is too contradictory to what we have in your mind, but so it must be. The problem is only in our mind.
-
Sometimes a creation is disturbing because it is too contradictory to what we have in your mind, but so it must be. The problem is only in our mind.
To be fair, some creations are disturbing outside your mind as well...
(https://static.freepik.com/free-photo/frankenstein-halloween-vector_21-58629591.jpg)
(and yes, I know his name really isn't)
-
How could anyone see that as a negative thing is beyond me... Sometimes a creation is disturbing because it is too contradictory to what we have in your mind, but so it must be. The problem is only in our mind.
But is it? Imagine a guy sees a bunch of beautiful fresh flowers on a grave. He decides to get "creative", not limit himself, and takes those flowers to give them to his girlfriend, since he hasn't got enough money with him anyway. Since there's nobody around, there's no control over what will happen to those flowers, and the symbolic value of those flowers is a problem only in the mind of the survivors, right? For me, it's spitting in the face and soul of those who give symbolic meaning to it, far worse than simply stealing someone else's property.
-
But is it? Imagine a guy sees a bunch of beautiful fresh flowers on a grave. He decides to get "creative", not limit himself, and takes those flowers to give them to his girlfriend, since he hasn't got enough money with him anyway. Since there's nobody around, there's no control over what will happen to those flowers, and the symbolic value of those flowers is a problem only in the mind of the survivors, right? For me, it's spitting in the face and soul of those who give symbolic meaning to it, far worse than simply stealing someone else's property.
Except in the case of music, which is infinitely reproducible, the flowers remain on the grave with all their symbolic power and are also given to the girlfriend and are thereby enriched with new meaning. One does not detract from the other. It's not a win-lose game.
-
Except in the case of music, which is infinitely reproducible, the flowers remain on the grave with all their symbolic power and are also given to the girlfriend and are thereby enriched with new meaning. One does not detract from the other. It's not a win-lose game.
In the strictly material sense, yes. Spiritually no, at least not for the ones who see it as their cultural heritage.
-
In the strictly material sense, yes. Spiritually no, at least not for the ones who see it as their cultural heritage.
God save us from those who seek to own what is universal.
-
But is it? Imagine a guy sees a bunch of beautiful fresh flowers on a grave. He decides to get "creative", not limit himself, and takes those flowers to give them to his girlfriend, since he hasn't got enough money with him anyway. Since there's nobody around, there's no control over what will happen to those flowers, and the symbolic value of those flowers is a problem only in the mind of the survivors, right? For me, it's spitting in the face and soul of those who give symbolic meaning to it, far worse than simply stealing someone else's property.
That's not the same thing. The person leaving those flowers did not leave them to be used by others. The composer on the other hand decided to sell his music to a publisher. He could have opted just to play it himself as he wanted.
-
God save us from those who seek to own what is universal.
Universal? I think it was meant for those who appreciate it in accordance with the intention with which it was given, no?
-
Universal? I think it was meant for those who appreciate it in accordance with the intention with which it was given, no?
No. The dead cannot bind the living. And you do not get to decide what is "n accordance with the intention with which it was given".
That which is freed upon the world is free.
-
(and yes, I know his name really isn't)
I'm not the picky one here!
-
I'm not the picky one here!
No, but I'm not the only one.
-
No. The dead cannot bind the living. And you do not get to decide what is "n accordance with the intention with which it was given".
That which is freed upon the world is free.
This explains very well the deplorable state Classical Music is in; a comodity with virtually all of its intrinsic value robbed from it by people who have no idea what they're doing. :(
-
This explains very well the deplorable state Classical Music is in; a comodity with virtually all of its intrinsic value robbed from it by people who have no idea what they're doing. :(
I repeat...
You'd have made a wonderful 19th century conservative fogey. You were born too late for your calling.
-
This explains very well the deplorable state Classical Music is in; a comodity with virtually all of its intrinsic value robbed from it by people who have no idea what they're doing. :(
But wouldn't it also be rather arrogant to think that one really knows the composer's mind well enough to ensure one is not committing any such robbery?
-
But wouldn't it also be rather arrogant to think that one really knows the composer's mind well enough to ensure one is not committing any such robbery?
I don't know which side is more arrogant: the ones who want to guard the tradition or the ones who want to trample it. A law, for example, becomes a meaningless bunch of letters if you neglect the intention, the spirit with which is was written. The moment you start giving an entirely different meaning to its content, it becomes obsolete for the purpose it was intended for. I think what we see happening in Classical Music is very much the same.
-
I don't know which side is more arrogant: the ones who want to guard the tradition or the ones who want to trample it. A law, for example, becomes a meaningless bunch of letters if you neglect the intention, the spirit with which is was written. The moment you start giving an entirely different meaning to its content, it becomes obsolete for the purpose it was intended for. I think what we see happening in Classical Music is very much the same.
How do you feel about piano trancriptions of operas or orchestral music then? Certainly the composer did not intend his ideas for voice or another instrument to be reduced to the limited means of a piano? Yet this crime was regularly committed by the 19th century composers.
-
I didn't even think the man walking in the video was a ghost. I just thought it was some weird cross fading as a way to present the pianist in the video. I think the portrayal of him as a ghost could have been eerie, not so bright and on stage; so tangible.
-
How do you feel about piano trancriptions of operas or orchestral music then? Certainly the composer did not intend his ideas for voice or another instrument to be reduced to the limited means of a piano? Yet this crime was regularly committed by the 19th century composers.
Transcriptions, improvisations of all kinds in different styles, etc. are OK as long as they are labeled as such, since the intention of the new author is clearly defined. Performance of the original, though, is morally bound by what it was intended for, because even if the commercial rights were sold and expired, it will always stay the intellectual property of the creator.
-
This is a great video, I like the light effects in the background also if anyone can shed light on the question posed that would be awesome!
Thank you. Alee Marie.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=53635.0
-
Before the author of this clip, I would make a case for getting to know the composer better through his other output before abusing any of his works in a way that is not appropriate. The moment you get to know most of his works, you develop a certain intuition, and you will be able to tell at a glance what he meant (as with a very close friend) and for what you can and can't do with his works: List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Rachmaninoff)
Mister Ogorodnikov, I am not the author of this video, but I wonder who gave you the right to make assumptions about people whom you do not know? For instance, why do you think that the authors of the clip are not familiar with works by Rachmaninoff and do not have sufficient intuition to decide on proper interpretation of the piece? Who appointed you to be the main decider of what is appropriate, and what is not? Definitely not Rachmaninoff, even though you have impudence to claim to be his friend! As they say, who needs enemies with friends like this?
-
@ levdeych
This particular piece of music as it is should not be dumbed down to please the masses. That's exactly what this clip is doing. It distracts from the elements that give the piece its appeal with images that are not related, and besides, the author gravely misunderstood the function of the B part in this Elegy. He can therefore not be very well acquainted at all with Rachmaninoff's output.
P.S.1: What's wrong with standing up for what a person believes in? The more so since we have a longstanding tradition here in Russia of how to play works by that composer. How can we *not* know what it is about?
P.S.2: I explained the context for the word "friend" (understanding at a glance what a composer means when you know his entire output really well). You probably missed that, because you are the first person in my whole life to call what I say/write "impudence". On the contrary, I have the greatest possible respect for that composer.
-
I want to express my appreciation of this clip. “Elegia” has been played by many famous pianists, and one can find its many interpretations on youTube. It happened that I did not like those which were too “gloomy” with overpowering dramatics. So naturally, when the music started I already got the idea, but I was intrigued by the visual story and did not turn it off. At the moment when the pianist raises his hand to rich to his baseball hat, I was rewarded by new emotions and new understanding of “Elegia”. The clip was telling me that while the music can exist just by itself, we still need a musician to be touched by it. Can you recognize a musician just by looking at him? Music recognizes him first, despite of his jeans, a t-shirt, and a baseball hat. Suddenly "Elegia” tells a story of someone who came, was recognized and gone, but never lost. I listened again through the clip and it was there in music, however without video I would fail to hear it. Thanks for this experience, because even at the concert I usually close me eyes to absorb the sound better.
@Mister Ogorodnikov. Here are the words of a listener, not a professional pianist, to whom this video opened a new meaning and new appreciation for "Elegie", helped him/her to overcome some pre-existing notions. But for you this person is probably just a representative of "dumb masses", with no rights to have an opinion, right?
@taler: Thank you for your very emotional response to the video and a fresh interpretation of the visuals in it.
-
@ levdeych
This particular piece of music as it is should not be dumbed down to please the masses. That's exactly what this clip is doing. It distracts from the elements that give the piece its appeal with images that are not related, and besides, the author gravely misunderstood the function of the B part in this Elegy. He can therefore not be very well acquainted at all with Rachmaninoff's output.
P.S.1: What's wrong with standing up for what a person believes in? The more so since we have a longstanding tradition here in Russia of how to play works by that composer. How can we *not* know what it is about?
I am not going to discuss your opinion about part B of the Elegie, simply because it is sheer nonsense. But I do want to respond to your P.S. 1. Everybody has a right to express an opinion and stand to what one believes in. What no one has rights to do is to claim that one's opinion is the absolute truth and discard alternative opinions. Speaking about Russian traditions of playing this piece, I can give you a piece of advice. Look up performances of Elegie by Achkenazi, Gavrilov, Lankova, which all are very different. Which one represents the Russian tradition you are talking about? But I think that your post represent a different Russian tradition - the one of totalitarian thinking.
-
@ levdeych
I am afraid you are misinterpreting my message and quite aggressively so: some pieces should just not be touched for video projects because they contain enough to speak for themselves. If video clips are deemed required, they should be chosen with good taste and consideration for what the contents really represent because visuals tend to overpower audio as it is. This is not Rachmaninoff's "ghost song". I cannot imagine that Sergey's teacher, the renowned professor Nina Svetlanova, would ever give her blessing to such a reading. Whatever good taste has to do with totalitarian thinking beats me.
-
Dima,
Like you, I am not found of clips that tie a great piece to a particular visual representation, because the visual representation sometimes does not go away in your memory when you listen to the music again afterwards. This is why I did not watch the movie "The Pianist", as good as people say it is, or also why I hate Gainsbourg and how he used and degraded several of Chopin's pieces (cannot un-remember that, as much as I would like to).
However, as long as the visual representation is not particularly shocking, strong or memorable in any way (and the clip shown here really is not), it has the valuable benefit of introducing newcomers to composers they would not know otherwise. If one viewer out of ten feels compelled to know more about Rachmaninoff, that is already a good thing. We all had to start somewhere :-)
Cheers.
-
@ levdeych
I am afraid you are misinterpreting my message and quite aggressively so: some pieces should just not be touched for video projects because they contain enough to speak for themselves. If video clips are deemed required, they should be chosen with good taste and consideration for what the contents really represent because visuals tend to overpower audio as it is. This is not Rachmaninoff's "ghost song". I cannot imagine that Sergey's teacher, the renowned professor Nina Svetlanova, would ever give her blessing to such a reading. Whatever good taste has to do with totalitarian thinking beats me.
Good taste has nothing to do with totalitarian thinking, but insistence that you are the only one having good taste definitely does. As far as M-m Svetlanova is concerned, I cannot talk for her, but from what I heard she liked the video, and definitely had no problems with interpretation of part B of Elegie.
-
Good taste has nothing to do with totalitarian thinking, but insistence that you are the only one having good taste definitely does.
Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggerated version of what I actually said? I have played this piece 4 times "live" and it was 4 times on different funerals upon request. The video clips are available, but I won't show them because they're simply too heart-breaking, too shocking. I hope you can at least understand that it works the other way around; what the author thinks it is may not be it. You have had support for your clip by all the others here and I am virtually the only who went against the clip for the reasons I stated. No need to take it so personally because my intentions are actually positive: good music above all, but not just anything goes as a way to introduce people to that music.
As far as M-m Svetlanova is concerned, I cannot talk for her, but from what I heard she liked the video, and definitely had no problems with interpretation of part B of Elegie.
I am not talking about Sergei's musical interpretation on the piano, by the way. I am talking about the wording of the "story" and the associated video images. This doesn't match from both the audio and video points of view, but let's just decide that that is my personal problem.
-
Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggerated version of what I actually said? I have played this piece 4 times "live" and it was 4 times on different funerals upon request. The clips are available, but I won't show them because they're simply too heart-breaking, too shocking.
I see that you have very powerful personal history behind this piece, which makes it very hard for you to see possible alternatives. This I can understand and respect. Still, I expect people with opposite views to at least acknowledge that their views are based on their personal history, and not to present them as "absolute truths". I am sorry, that this is how your posts came across. I do not mind anyone not liking things that I like and disagreeing with me, this is normal. But I do have low tolerance level for people attacking personal and professional integrity of their opponents.
-
I usually listen to music with my eyes closed (unless I am driving), so this was an experience for me. Music always paints pictures in my mind, but it is equally pleasing to have those pictures painted for you by way of video.
I loved what you have done and look forward to seeing/hearing more of your work.
Thal
-
I usually listen to music with my eyes closed (unless I am driving), so this was an experience for me. Music always paints pictures in my mind, but it is equally pleasing to have those pictures painted for you by way of video.
I loved what you have done and look forward to seeing/hearing more of your work.
Thal
My role in producing this video was quite limited, but thank you for the kind words, which I will pass on to the actual authors. On a more general note, it is indeed not easy to make a good music video based on classical pieces. The music sets such a high level that it is quite challenging to match it visually in a meaningful way. I think this is why there aren't many good classical music videos around, and this is why I am proud of what was accomplished in this presentation of Elegie.
-
I see that you have very powerful personal history behind this piece, which makes it very hard for you to see possible alternatives. This I can understand and respect. Still, I expect people with opposite views to at least acknowledge that their views are based on their personal history, and not to present them as "absolute truths". I am sorry, that this is how your posts came across. I do not mind anyone not liking things that I like and disagreeing with me, this is normal. But I do have low tolerance level for people attacking personal and professional integrity of their opponents.
Thank you for your balanced reply. I still have doubts that have nothing to do with my personal experience/taste and that are intended to support Sergei in his aspirations. Three questions to start with:
1) Who exactly is the target group?
2) Is the only goal of this clip to popularize this music among people that don't know it?
3) Did this video clip (+ storyline) pass an independent director's judgement?
(Respectfully submitted).
-
I still have doubts that have nothing to do with my personal experience/taste and that are intended to support Sergey in his aspirations.
Sergei, being long dead, stopped aspiring some time ago, and never needed or sought your support in any case.
Three questions to start with:
1) Who exactly is the target group?
2) Is the only goal of this clip to popularize this music among people that don't know it?
3) Did this video clip (+ storyline) pass an independent director's judgement?
(Respectfully submitted).
What do you care. You are clearly not part of 1).
I know you feel a special affinity of Rachmaninoff generally, and this piece in particular, but you do not own it. It needs no protector.
-
Sergei, being long dead, stopped aspiring some time ago, and never needed or sought your support in any case.
The pianist in the clip (https://www.sergeideych.com/) is the Sergei I am referring to.
What do you care. You are clearly not part of 1).
I know you feel a special affinity of Rachmaninoff generally, and this piece in particular, but you do not own it. It needs no protector.
Sergei, the pianist in the clip, may also be interested in career planning and in the opinion of professionals who may come across this clip. Therefore, and since this is essentially an artistic undertaking, my post has other purposes.
-
The pianist in the clip is the Sergei I am referring to.
Then I have misunderstood, and retract.
-
Thank you for your balanced reply. I still have doubts that have nothing to do with my personal experience/taste and that are intended to support Sergei in his aspirations. Three questions to start with:
1) Who exactly is the target group?
2) Is the only goal of this clip to popularize this music among people that don't know it?
3) Did this video clip (+ storyline) pass an independent director's judgement?
(Respectfully submitted).
I begin with the last question, which I, however, do not quite understand. What do you mean by independent director? The pianist in the clip did not direct and shoot the clip, he just, if I may say, "starred" in it and provided his recording of the piece. The "story" line, directing, cinematography, has been done by a different person. Does it qualify as an independent director's judgement?
First and second questions are kind of convoluted, so I address them together. The rationale behind this project was to try something new in presentation of classical music with the one of the goals, yes, to reach out to new audience, which would not normally listen to classical music. So called MTV generation has grown on videos presenting pop music in a very dynamic visually engaging way. If classical musicians refuse to address needs and habits of the new generations of potential listeners, classical music will disappear as a vital cultural force, which would be a tragedy. Some people involved in classical music do realize it, and trying to do something about it. But to do so without sacrificing the high meaning and nature of classical music is not an easy task. This video is an experiment, a first attempt, by two young people to attract their peers to the genre.
Of course, the authors of the project are also interested in exploring alternative ways of career development, and they are hoping to attract attention of professionals, but this goal is subordinated and actually dependent on the first one. As example of Valentina Lisitsa shows, if someone is capable to cultivate sufficient fan base, everybody pays attention. Also, from the career development point of view, if this project will play a role in it, it will affect mostly the cinematographer rather than the pianist (unless, of course, they form a stable team and pull each other together).
-
I begin with the last question, which I, however, do not quite understand. What do you mean by independent director? The pianist in the clip did not direct and shoot the clip, he just, if I may say, "starred" in it and provided his recording of the piece. The "story" line, directing, cinematography, has been done by a different person. Does it qualify as an independent director's judgement?
The "problem" with that person is that he/she knew the storyline, so he/she can read between his/her own lines with the assumptions in the back of his/her head. I would be very interested to know whether an independent director (or a very experienced viewer of that kind of clips) can make out what the first part of the clip is about simply in terms of picture associations without getting additional info. I have tried, even with the sound off, but I can't. I may, of course, be too stuck in my "suffering-has-meaning" scenario to accept any movement at all. Besides, I am also not well-versed in the MTV video-clip culture.
Why I asked these questions. While for an MTV audience almost anything may be acceptable as long as it moves, we are dealing here with another genre and I suspect that professionals of all kinds who may come across any video clips of a certain artist X in this format will hold pianist X responsible for the artistic end result, even if somebody else made the clip since pianist X willingly participated and plays the lead role. What we see will be considered pianist X's view, not somebody else's. J_menz repeatedly rubbed my nose in it, so I can accept now that the video and audio lines may perhaps exist independently, but you want to make sure that each separate line of elements is understood on an intuitive level the way you intended to get your artistic message across to even the most critical professional. I hope this makes sense? Am I severely mistaken again? Thank you for your patience.
-
The "problem" with that person is that he/she knew the storyline, so he/she can read between his/her own lines with the assumptions in the back of his/her head. I would be very interested to know whether an independent director (or a very experienced viewer of that kind of clips) can make out what the first part of the clip is about simply in terms of picture associations without getting additional info. I have tried, even with the sound off, but I can't. I may, of course, be too stuck in my "suffering-has-meaning" scenario to accept any movement at all. Besides, I am also not well-versed in the MTV video-clip culture.
Why I asked these questions. While for an MTV audience almost anything may be acceptable as long as it moves, we are dealing here with another genre and I suspect that professionals of all kinds who may come across any video clips of a certain artist X in this format will hold pianist X responsible for the artistic end result, even if somebody else made the clip since pianist X willingly participated and plays the lead role. What we see will be considered pianist X's view, not somebody else's. J_menz repeatedly rubbed my nose in it, so I can accept now that the video and audio lines may perhaps exist independently, but you want to make sure that each separate line of elements is understood on an intuitive level the way you intended to get your artistic message across to even the most critical professional. I hope this makes sense? Am I severely mistaken again? Thank you for your patience.
But why should the message be understood like that? Many feel that great art is created not only by the artist but also by the way everyone experiences it (in their own way). The composer may have something in his own mind when composing, but be quite happy to accept quite different interpretations of the idea of the piece. Actually I,'ve read about composers being quite reluctant to explain their pieces, bur insisted that the listener/performer make their own.
-
But why should the message be understood like that?
Like what? I think this particular piece is already OK by itself. As soon as you add visuals, you will either have to let them work for themselves logically OR explain them, find excuses to do it that way before an audience that is not part of the uncritical target group.
I already stopped saying that the piece has to be understood like this or that. I am now saying that if the clip is watched by someone out of the uncritical target group, the pianist will be held responsible for the artistic end result of that clip. Let the lines be independent, but they should have an intuitive logic if separately taken. Random music with randomly moving motion pictures will NOT be accepted by an audience that is NOT new to the music. This may, however, very well be a person that may play a role in how the pianist's career will develop. Does it matter if you get a good review? Does it matter if you get a review that sucks? That's for the artist to decide.
Example: There's a clip by Valentina Igoshina of the Chopin Nocturne in C minor. The way she gives horny looks into the camera at the most psychologically unlucky moments in the development of that tragic piece has raised lots of eyebrows. I believe it's her husband who edited it (there's even an apology) but she herself is held responsible. I am surprised to see that she hasn't replaced the video "stimuli" with anything else (the audio is good). Completely beside the point of the piece, and while I used to admire her, she has lost it as a serious artist as far as I am concerned.
-
The "problem" with that person is that he/she knew the storyline, so he/she can read between his/her own lines with the assumptions in the back of his/her head. I would be very interested to know whether an independent director (or a very experienced viewer of that kind of clips) can make out what the first part of the clip is about simply in terms of picture associations without getting additional info.
Why I asked these questions. While for an MTV audience almost anything may be acceptable as long as it moves, we are dealing here with another genre and I suspect that professionals of all kinds who may come across any video clips of a certain artist X in this format will hold pianist X responsible for the artistic end result, even if somebody else made the clip since pianist X willingly participated and plays the lead role. What we see will be considered pianist X's view, not somebody else's. J_menz repeatedly rubbed my nose in it, so I can accept now that the video and audio lines may perhaps exist independently, but you want to make sure that each separate line of elements is understood on an intuitive level the way you intended to get your artistic message across to even the most critical professional. I hope this makes sense? Am I severely mistaken again? Thank you for your patience.
The interesting thing is that the story line that I described (with the ghost and everything) is not necessarily what the director had in mind. The thing about music is that while you can treat any classical composition as a kind of a story, I do not think it is right for an artist, employing non-musical means, to impose his interpretation of the story in a too concrete, too explicit form. It limits a broad musical content to someone's too specific a vision. Thus, someone attempting to do this should walk a very thin line between creating a general framework for a story, without which, video does not make much sense, (and you end up showing pianists's hands in all possible ways, which is boring), and turning this framework into a too specific story line, which would have a limiting effect. from my point of view, one of the successes of the video in question (in addition to quite beautiful cinematography), is that the director managed to stay on this very thin line, which is evidenced by the fact that I heard a great deal of different interpretations of the video from different viewers. Other people do not even try to invent a particulars of the story being content to enjoy the general mood that cinematography creates.
I agree with you that the musician in a such a video carries the full responsibility for what he/she participates in. This particular video is definitely a collaborative effort between the musician and the director/cinematographer. Did the pianist undermined his credibility by this video? I do not think so. Quite a few highly professional musicians of international repute gave rather high marks to this effort, and they did understand the artistic message, but of course, not any concrete particular story one could invent using this video. The director of the video actually received offers of collaboration from at least two professional classical pianists.
-
Example: There's a clip by Valentina Igoshina of the Chopin Nocturne in C minor. The way she gives horny looks into the camera at the most psychologically unlucky moments in the development of that tragic piece has raised lots of eyebrows. I believe it's her husband who edited it (there's even an apology) but she herself is held responsible. I am surprised to see that she hasn't replaced the video "stimuli" with anything else (the audio is good). Completely beside the point of the piece, and while I used to admire her, she has lost it as a serious artist as far as I am concerned.
I checked out the clip you mention here. It sucks, and not just because of her "dirty looks", it is simply not inventive from cinemtographical point of view. In the absence of the narrative framework they made this video to be about her, and all they could use was her feminine beauty. The probably could do it in a more tasteful way, but this was not, in my view, a main problem with her video.
-
The thing about music is that while you can treat any classical composition as a kind of a story, I do not think it is right for an artist, employing non-musical means, to impose his interpretation of the story in a too concrete, too explicit form. It limits a broad musical content to someone's too specific a vision.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Some things should not be said or shown too explicitly.
P.S.: May I ask you what you think of this? Wouldn't this work well for the intended audience?
It's the same Elegie but this time for cello and piano with minimum visual factors. The performer is the (then) 9-grade [16-year old] cello student of the Central Music School here in Moscow, Anastasia Kobekina.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Some things should not be said or shown too explicitly.
P.S.: May I ask you what you think of this? Wouldn't this work well for the intended audience?
It's the same Elegie but this time for cello and piano with minimum visual factors. The performer is the (then) 9-grade [15-year old] cello student of the Central Music School here in Moscow, Anastasia Kobekina.
The cello sounds beautifully! Kudos to Anastasia! I liked this performance a lot. The visual effects, however, is a different story A random selection of photographs, no matter how beautiful they are, does not make a video.
-
Like what?
I was referring to:
"make sure that each separate line of elements is understood on an intuitive level the way you intended to get your artistic message across"
But anyway, I just don't feel the way you do about art or moral...And I don't think many people do, so that's why it's hard to understand such strong disapproval of an art work/experiment. It's an example of a fusion of two art forms, intended to create something new. Whether it works well or not is not that relevant to me, it's for everyone to decide themselves.
-
I was referring to:
"make sure that each separate line of elements is understood on an intuitive level the way you intended to get your artistic message across"
OK. Personally, I am very visual. If I see something that doesn't make sense, I spend energy trying to understand what I see, energy that had better be spent on the audio impulses of this very powerful piece. But as you know from another thread, eyes dominate over ears when they are used together. You then have a choice: either close your eyes and listen or stop actually listening and watch. The last variant is a sin (in the sense of wasted time and energy). It is also a sign that the director has failed in his/her mission: instead of adding something valuable, he/she has taken away the essentials. There must be a perfect balance of all elements for this format to work. Does that make sense?
-
OK. Personally, I am very visual. If I see something that doesn't make sense, I spend energy trying to understand what I see, energy that had better be spent on the audio impulses of this very powerful piece. But as you know from another thread, eyes dominate over ears when they are used together. You then have a choice: either close your eyes and listen or stop actually listening and watch. The last variant is a sin (in the sense of wasted time and energy). It is also a sign that the director has failed in his mission: instead of adding something valuable, he has taken away the essentials. There must be a perfect balance of all elements for this format to work. Does that make sense?
There's no such thing in my vocabulary as sin, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with choosing only to watch/listen. Why do you say that the director has failed? That's assuming that his mission was to make sense to EVERYONE. Trying to please everyone or make it easy enough to be understood by everyone is a very limiting thing for any artist.
I understand perfectly why you would not enjoy a video like this. Even though I like films, I feel no need to see pictures when I listen to music. I also don't care to add stories to music. I was never much a fan of music videos either. I only like to watch films of the pianist's hands when they play because seeing the actual playing adds something to my listening experience.
But I don't think there's anything wrong with doing something like the above either... I guess you would find it easier to accept a musical film made together with the composer (something like Koyaanisqatsi by Philip Glass) instead of trying to visualize a composition of the past, because it would be very hard to do it in a way that you could approve?
-
There's no such thing in my vocabulary as sin, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with choosing only to watch/listen. Why do you say that the director has failed?
It's not the terminology. "Sin" is whatever you do that you know you shouldn't have done. It's just a short word to type.
If the aim of the video clip is to better acquaint people with the music of a certain composer, wouldn't you want the audience to actually listen to that music, accompanied with a video that does not distract the attention from the audio? If the intended audience instead starts watching without listening, what is the clip for then? Do we want Classical music to go the same way as most of the "music" in the pop culture; useless background noise?
-
It's not the terminology. "Sin" is whatever you do that you know you shouldn't have done. It's just a short word to type.
If the aim of the video clip is to better acquaint people with the music of a certain composer, wouldn't you want the audience to actually listen to that music, accompanied with a video that does not distract the attention from the audio? If the intended audience instead starts watching without listening, what is the clip for then? Do we want Classical music to go the same way as most of the "music" in the pop culture; useless background noise?
But how can you assume that other people than you are distracted in the similar way by the video? And if some are, why should the director care? He is creating something and IMO the creation should first reflect his ideas and his inner world, not just anticipate the reaction of the audience. If it also happens to work well in promoting classical music, fine, but I would not value it much if that was the only purpose.
I also don't think of any sounds as "useless background noice", sound is always part of the experience. Sometimes more and sometimes less dominant part. But it isn't in any way sacred or somehow should be valued above any other part of the experiment.
Then again I have never been into listening to music sitting quietly trying to keep everything else out. I listen to music all the time when possible, out in the nature, walking around, in the city... All that creates different experiences connected with music, but the music is never just background music. It was not possible to do that when the music was composed, so there's no way to know whether the composers would have approved ;)
-
But how can you assume that other people than you are distracted in the similar way by the video?
I hate to say this, but science has proven that it works that way for virtually everybody. This has to do with building trust (or not) as a defense mechanism against threats. That's what the eyes are for. As soon as the eyes trust what they see, the ears can take over. If you are really really interested, I can try to locate a source (.pdf or something)
And if some are, why should the director care?
That's a business decision in favor of quality others who don't care so much may not provide. You either do something really well, or you don't do it. No in-between in this business. The competition will eat you.
-
I hate to say this, but science has proven that it works that way for virtually everybody. This has to do with building trust as a defense mechanism against threats. That's what the eyes are for. As soon as the eyes trust what they see, the ears can take over. If you are really really interested, I can try to locate a source (.pdf or something)
That's a business decision in favor of quality others who don't care so much may not provide. You either do something really well, or you don't do it. No in-between in this business. The competition will eat you.
I'm getting really confused...I thought you were distracted from the music essentially because this specific video representation was "wrong"? Of course one's attention is divided by many things (which I still see as no bad thing) because of our natural mechanisms, but it will be the same for any video to some extend, good or bad. There's no way to make a video that would be as non-threatening to everyone. And what would be the point in making a video that changes nothing in your listening experience?
And again I read you saying that your judgement of what "doing well" means is the only right one? If you feel that way maybe you should make a career as a critic instead of a performer?
I am not trying to argue or offend, I am just trying to find out why you cannot just say that you did not like the video and it lessened your enjoyment of the music. All this stuff about morals and diminishing the value of classical music sounds really weird coming from a young (?) man. I just cannot believe you would have such a concervative (putting it mildly) view... ???
-
I'm getting really confused...I thought you were distracted from the music essentially because this specific video representation was "wrong"?
Levdeych and I were already in agreement. There's nothing "wrong" in this case except for my personal problem. I just pointed out a possible problem with projects of this type, not with this particular video. Let's just let it rest, OK?
-
Lev and I were already in agreement. There's nothing "wrong" in this case except for my personal problem. I just pointed out a possible problem with projects of this type, not with this particular video. Let's just let it rest, OK?
Yes, we can do that :)
Just please don't worry too much, if the music has substance enough it will survive even the tackiest attempts!
-
I like it when pianists play. I like it when pianists compose. I like pianists in music videos. I like it when pianists play their own compositions in a music video. :)