Kevin Hadsell

[comme_le_vent]

what do you people think of him, and in particular his method of playing/recording?

in case you didnt know, he plays pieces in a cut tempo, say about 2/3 or 3/4 speed, and he alters the recording up to the tempo he desires. He says with this technique, he can in theory make more perfect recordings.

anyway what are your opinions on him and this recording concept?

[comme_le_vent]

https://www.kevinhadsell.com/

more info can be found there, he actually uses midi techniques and records at about 60-70% tempo.

his musical philosiphy is very interesting, and if in the end - his way of producing music - or similar methods - can eventually end up sounding better than normal human performances, will this render pianism as we know it today - useless?

not necesarrily my opinion - but an interesting concept.
and in the end isnt the MUSIC more important than the pianist/ pianist's ego.

i have a feeling this will be a hot topic..........

[steinwaymodeld]

i still take my hat off for him

as he recorded all of the Godowsky etudes(yes, not only hamelin did that)

[Noah]

But he'll never be a performer with that philosophy... and I believe performing is the essence of music.

[liszmaninopin]

I have to admit, I rather like traditional thoughts on performance.  What started all this talk of pop pianists, anyway?

[nad]

Well, i don't see the point of it actually. So you'll know how a piece in theory should sound like. And then what? It's still theoretically speaking, i don't see any value in that.
You can play an etude at 10% of the tempo (so you won't make any mistake) and then alter the recording till the right tempo. What's the difference between playing 1% and 70% of the tempo? Why bother to play 70% then? It's both fake.

But he'll never be a performer with that philosophy... and I believe performing is the essence of music.

I agree on that  

Nad

[comme_le_vent]

1stly - he isnt a 'pop' pianist - he is a genuine 'classical' pianist who plays godowsky, chopin and the like...

2ndly - his methods are in their infancy, so they will only progress to create more realistic performances

but lets say - in future he refines his method - or other people do similar things - and create more 'perfect' performances of pieces - free of any physical barriers - andthese could sound better than any live pianist,
what would you think then?

[chopiabin]

It's the first step towards having machines make "perfect" music. Mistakes are part of the humanity of music.

Also, if they start doing this all the time, where will it leave performers? Audiences will be expecting superhuman performances that no unaltered pianist can deliver.

[nad]

I did not mean to say that he's a bad pianist or whatever, in case you might think that. It's just that i don't appreciate the method. The music is altered by computers, machine's.. That's fake. Except the fact that computers are already taking over human labour etc (nowadays if you're rich you can buy a robot who does the housekeeping...), computers are doing all sorts of things humans can't do good enough, take a look in medical sciences etc. Without computers we're all lost it seems. Computers already play such a big part in life, greater than the naked eye can see.
Lets keep music and the art of it, the pure way, and let the prodigies of the world perform 'perfect' music.
That's what i think.

Nad

[chopiabin]

Can a machine create art without a human influenece?

[bobo]

Hello,

Summary - it is probably good for most listeners, and
                really boring as a recording practice.
                It seems unethical not to label recordings as
                   the product of this approach.

Assuming the midi rendering is on a real piano I think it would sound
very good.  It would probably sound as good as other real
recordings.  The problem, or rather aversion I have to the practice
is only that it represents a different hobby than playing piano.  It is
a good hobby and it is tempting to compare the results to what
one experiences at a good recital, but it really dumbs it down for
those of us who really like the idea of competing with all the great
recordings that are out there -- the live recordings at least.   For
the audiance it is probably great - or at least as great as a
recording can be, and assuming the emotional/musical
content can be successfully rendered at a slow speed.

I think there is a tendency to view recordings as the real
window into piano playing (and music in general) and this is a
pity.  If you have access to live music it is (at least for me) tons
more interesting.  You then realize that iterpretation is this vital
dimension that isn't as static as one thinks from having one
recording of each great tune.  That is the real reason that I don't
have much interest in this form of music rendering - it is a very
logical extension of the approach Glenn Gould took of making
recordings and fixing up blunders in the editing room.  I hold him
in very low esteem for this.  (And for many other reasons I won't
detail).  I don't see any difference
philosophically between the midi thing and patching up that
note you missed in a recording.  I'd much rather all the
recordings I have be live.

I've made recordings via overdub wherein I played multiple parts.
They turn out very nicely and I actually like to listen to them, but
they are completely impoverished on the real time musician to
musician communication front, which you can't get if you don't
have everyone playing at once.  It isn't a completely implausible
stretch to suspect that the midi technique distances the
interpreter from the composer's intent.  By this I mean I don't
know if one would be able to learn to feel, and hence impart,
the frantic inexorable drama of the third movement of Op 57
if it had to be rendered it at a safe speed - but then again KH may
really enjoy this and do it well.   Even if he can do this, I'd still
rather listen to live, because a real piano with a real competent
human player is still the best technology available for the kind
of sound/music I'd like to hear.  Every time I get to the end of
the Rach 3 recording I have w/ M.A. and the applause starts up I
think "she nailed it".  One take, live.  This makes it the real deal
to me and that's the only thing I'm interested in working on.

Regards,
Bobo

[bernhard]

Have a look here:

https://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/298/

So, is this cheating?

[trunks]

Kevin's official site seems down, I mean:
https://www.kevinhadsell.com
 . . . or am I the only one?

Whatever, I hope Kevin won't Hardsell his funny method of making music.
Any folks here know any site that shows a picture of Kevin?

[faulty_damper]

What Hadsell is doing isn't new.  It's just a variation of editing recordings.

They edit both digital and analog recordings all the time.  For example, in the aim of trying to record perfectly, they may have to do dozens of takes and cut and paste them together.  Done digitally, it's flawless.  They've been doing this for a long time.