Curzon+Schubert 960=devastating

[franzliszt2]

His name is John?? I'm upset, we have something in common  I'm just incredibly curious to to hear his opinions on scarbo. If they can be justified then fine, I'll apoligise, if not, I won't.

[elevateme_returns]

thanks debussy x

[soliloquy]

Sorry I was having problems with my router because my ppp password/username were lost and I had to go through my very poor ISP (centurytel is all we have down here =/) to get them, which was a major hassle, because their data systems were down (contact them if you don't believe me).

1- debussy, quit causing trouble; you can't yell at me for starting arguments and making derogitory remarks in posts where you are doing nothing but.

2- I've been ignoring franz and elevateme to avoid more of these stupid and pointless and time-wasting confrontations for several days now, despite their best efforts to start them up with me in numerous threads (can cite), so I don't want to hear it.


Onto my personal opinions regarding the recording of Scarbo that was posted on here, and I am going to try to be as civil and helpful as possible:


The opening seemed a bit rushed and heavy, which I think strongly detracts from the performance, as this piece is supposed to be mysterious and brooding.  You should give the notes time to seep into the conscious of the listeners; you have to remember that this is in essense a tableau, and you should try to represent what is being portrayed through the whole piece; in this case, it is the scene of a dark and shadowy graveyard.  I think that a lot of this was lost through most of the performance because this interpretation almost seems to struggle (was it your first time performing this piece?), as if instead of conveying the idea of the music wasn't what you were thinking about, but that you were more worried about hitting all the notes, if you know what I mean.  This seems to have lead to a very heavy-struck and pedal-filled performance, which effected the variety in your dynamics.  Because of this, the two main climaxes in the piece didn't really seem like climaxes; they just sort of sounded like more of what you've been playing, but faster, particularly in the first one, as you had been rushing slightly through the LH figurations (maybe from nervousness?  if it was your first time performing or recording it that would explain why), and then coupled with the fact that you rushed the big zenithic moment, you didn't allow it to register as a high point in the piece, at least in my mind.  On this point of denying yourself climax, I think that you may have overused the pedal; if you reserve a heavier pedal for only the more brooding and/or the high points, it will create an overall more interesting and dynamic performance.  Your rhythm is also extremely static; because the LH acts primarily as an ostinato throughout most of the piece it almost seems unwilling to exhibit any bravura or rubato at times when it is truly necessary for a "great" performance.  The second half of the piece you seem to almost have a reverse effect, whereas in the first part you were playing very fast and loud, but in the second part you seem to be playing very quietly and softly, almost as if the entire passage between the first and second big apexes was leading up to the second, but I think it is too long to utilize in this way; also, because it is such a downplay from how the piece was being played earlier, while being a fairly interesting interpretation on its own, in comparison to what the listener had become accustomed to it suddenly seems withdrawn and almost, in lack of better terms, boring.  Again, I don't feel the second climax really conveyed as much emotion it should have, as the lead-up to it was just too loud and its tempo didn't fluctuate from the big finale.  Also, a minor note, in that particular instance I think you may try to more highlight the big, crashing chords rather than the basso figures; in this recording, they almost seem synonymous in importance.


To me, the playing sounded nervous, and the interpretation sounded much too straight-forward/notes off the page, as opposed to trying to represent what the music was ABOUT, and it lacked enough variety to keep me so interested as to want to hear it again.  Although you are fairly young so a slightly immature interpretation is what should be expected.  I think once you play it more and get comfortable with the techniques involved, you'll be able to experiment more effectively with the barrage of interpretive points and eventually you will be performing this piece fairly well; just not quite there yet.

[debussy symbolism]

Thanks "Soliloquy," I guess I may have been mistaken. You stood by your statement and that proves to me that you were not joking about providing a reply. Still, the way you attacked "Elevateme" is still no excuse, despite the analysis.

[elevateme_returns]

thanks soliloquy, now i get why it was atrocious . when are you posting your recording? i'd love to help you just as much as you've helped me xx

[franzliszt2]

Sorry I was having problems with my router because my ppp password/username were lost and I had to go through my very poor ISP (centurytel is all we have down here =/) to get them, which was a major hassle, because their data systems were down (contact them if you don't believe me).

1- debussy, quit causing trouble; you can't yell at me for starting arguments and making derogitory remarks in posts where you are doing nothing but.

2- I've been ignoring franz and elevateme to avoid more of these stupid and pointless and time-wasting confrontations for several days now, despite their best efforts to start them up with me in numerous threads (can cite), so I don't want to hear it.


Onto my personal opinions regarding the recording of Scarbo that was posted on here, and I am going to try to be as civil and helpful as possible:


The opening seemed a bit rushed and heavy, which I think strongly detracts from the performance, as this piece is supposed to be mysterious and brooding. You should give the notes time to seep into the conscious of the listeners; you have to remember that this is in essense a tableau, and you should try to represent what is being portrayed through the whole piece; in this case, it is the scene of a dark and shadowy graveyard. I think that a lot of this was lost through most of the performance because this interpretation almost seems to struggle (was it your first time performing this piece?), as if instead of conveying the idea of the music wasn't what you were thinking about, but that you were more worried about hitting all the notes, if you know what I mean. This seems to have lead to a very heavy-struck and pedal-filled performance, which effected the variety in your dynamics. Because of this, the two main climaxes in the piece didn't really seem like climaxes; they just sort of sounded like more of what you've been playing, but faster, particularly in the first one, as you had been rushing slightly through the LH figurations (maybe from nervousness? if it was your first time performing or recording it that would explain why), and then coupled with the fact that you rushed the big zenithic moment, you didn't allow it to register as a high point in the piece, at least in my mind. On this point of denying yourself climax, I think that you may have overused the pedal; if you reserve a heavier pedal for only the more brooding and/or the high points, it will create an overall more interesting and dynamic performance. Your rhythm is also extremely static; because the LH acts primarily as an ostinato throughout most of the piece it almost seems unwilling to exhibit any bravura or rubato at times when it is truly necessary for a "great" performance. The second half of the piece you seem to almost have a reverse effect, whereas in the first part you were playing very fast and loud, but in the second part you seem to be playing very quietly and softly, almost as if the entire passage between the first and second big apexes was leading up to the second, but I think it is too long to utilize in this way; also, because it is such a downplay from how the piece was being played earlier, while being a fairly interesting interpretation on its own, in comparison to what the listener had become accustomed to it suddenly seems withdrawn and almost, in lack of better terms, boring. Again, I don't feel the second climax really conveyed as much emotion it should have, as the lead-up to it was just too loud and its tempo didn't fluctuate from the big finale. Also, a minor note, in that particular instance I think you may try to more highlight the big, crashing chords rather than the basso figures; in this recording, they almost seem synonymous in importance.


To me, the playing sounded nervous, and the interpretation sounded much too straight-forward/notes off the page, as opposed to trying to represent what the music was ABOUT, and it lacked enough variety to keep me so interested as to want to hear it again. Although you are fairly young so a slightly immature interpretation is what should be expected. I think once you play it more and get comfortable with the techniques involved, you'll be able to experiment more effectively with the barrage of interpretive points and eventually you will be performing this piece fairly well; just not quite there yet.

Thankyou  I apoligise for my comments. I believe what you said is reasonable and not immature

[elevateme_returns]

in this case, it is the scene of a dark and shadowy graveyard.

what.

[mephisto]

what.

Are you sure you don't mean:

What?

[elevateme_returns]

that's what i meant. but the full stop is right next to the question mark on my keyboard, and i missed it and didn't notice.


it was a typing error... surely it's not that important...

[nicco]

Actually it can be misunderstood. Is it really that hard to check for 2 seconds and see if you got it right?

[elevateme_returns]

is it really that hard to understand? what does "what." mean ?

either way i can only offer you my most sincere apologies in this highly important matter. i will strive to do my best and make sure i never make the same mistake again.

back on topic, whats all this about a graveyard with shadows?? are we talking about the same piece? im talking about scarbo. in which there is no mention of a graveyard.

[franzliszt2]

Are you sure you don't mean:

What?

hahahahaha unbelievable. are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

[nicco]

is it really that hard to understand? what does "what." mean ?

either way i can only offer you my most sincere apologies in this highly important matter. i will strive to do my best and make sure i never make the same mistake again.

back on topic, whats all this about a graveyard with shadows?? are we talking about the same piece? im talking about scarbo. in which there is no mention of a graveyard.

Would you cut the *** crap and ridiculous sarcasm and write like a normal person? You sound retarded.

[elevateme_returns]

hahahahaha. it doesnt sound retarded at all! youre clearly just getting wound up. i say take a deep breath, count to 10, then write a new post. 

[elevateme_returns]

you should try to represent what is being portrayed through the whole piece; in this case, it is the scene of a dark and shadowy graveyard.

well? are you going to show me where you got this dark and shadowy graveyard information? that is apparently being portrayed in the whole thing?

[soliloquy]

well? are you going to show me where you got this dark and shadowy graveyard information? that is apparently being portrayed in the whole thing?

Sorry I was not thinking of the actual Bertrand poem; I was thinking of the myth of Scarbo.  Either way I stand by what I said.  Just substitute "dark graveyard" for "dark bedroom"

[elevateme_returns]

hmmm... ok . opinionated though! thanks anyway. ive found that its always helpful to hear other people's views of how they think it should go.

and sorry about all the arguing.... bit immature on my part really. truce?

[soliloquy]

hmmm... ok . opinionated though! thanks anyway. ive found that its always helpful to hear other people's views of how they think it should go.

and sorry about all the arguing.... bit immature on my part really. truce?

Sure.

[mephisto]

hahahahaha unbelievable. are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

Yes.

[franzliszt2]

Glad you agree.

[mephisto]

You fail to understand that by writing yes, I am dissagreing with your post.

I do however admit that I should have written "Yes, I am sure that I don't mean that I am a wanker".

[elevateme_returns]

hahahaha

[franzliszt2]

You fail to understand that by writing yes, I am dissagreing with your post.

I do however admit that I should have written "Yes, I am sure that I don't mean that I am a wanker".

My God you worry me. You really do. You just agreed to being a wanker. Retard

[mephisto]

You wrote:

are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

Let us pretend you had written:

are you sure YOU mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

If I had written "yes" to THAT post, it would have implied that I belived I was a wanker. Naturally when you wrote the opposite of that(i.e:are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!) me writing yes implies that I am sure that I don't mean that I am a wanker.

Please show me what is wrong with this post.

[franzliszt2]

What the hell. You are not English, you don't understand my use of the language. And you just made yourself look like a fool, becasue everyone knows that what I said was correct.

hahahahaha unbelievable. are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

was my respone you YOUR post

Are you sure you don't mean:

What?


You even used the same English as me you silly person. My God, were you educated or raised in a field?

[mephisto]

I still don't understand.

[franzliszt2]

Thats becasue you are silly

[franzliszt2]

Oh gosh....sorry, to stop you getting confused....

"That's becasue you are silly"

[mephisto]

You have still not shown what was wrong in my post.

Do you think I should have written "no"?

[counterpoint]

I understand, that "Wanker" is an expression similar to "Warmduscher" in german. How silly to quarrel about who is a Warmduscher and who is not   

[franzliszt2]

You have still not shown what was wrong in my post.

Do you think I should have written "no"?

Well personally I don't think you should have written no, because I stand by my statement. But if you didn't want to admit to a wanker you should have said no.

haha trust me counterpoint...I was refering to the english use of the word 

[mephisto]

But if you didn't want to admit to a wanker you should have said no.

I dissagree.

At least by writing yes one has to admit that I was dissagreeing. Let's see what any of the other members think.

[counterpoint]

haha trust me counterpoint...I was refering to the english use of the word 

You mean... really?... you talked about... s.. e...x... ? ? ? 

[elevateme_returns]

I dissagree.

At least by writing yes one has to admit that I was dissagreeing. Let's see what any of the other members think.

the point is, does it really matter. in arguing about it youre making yourself look more and more like a wanker, regardless of what you meant.

[franzliszt2]

You mean... really?... you talked about... s.. e...x... ? ? ? 

oh dear!!! I suppose I did, oh no!! I've been a very naughty boy!!

[elevateme_returns]

eh?? sex with your hand. thats not much

[nicco]

hahahahaha unbelievable. are you sure YOU don't mean...... I AM A WANKER!!!

Yes, i am sure (that i don't mean that).

[counterpoint]

oh dear!!! I suppose I did, oh no!! I've been a very naughty boy!!

I'm always irritated, if someone talks to another person about sex, when he wants to offend him  ^^

[rob47]

it is the scene of a dark and shadowy graveyard

what.

I think in this case the 'what' with a period worked well in a sarcastic way: It's as if elevateme_returns looked at soliloquy's comment with disbelief but, uninterested in making a big deal instead said 'what' in an unenthusiastic monotone.

that's how i read it the first time anyway.

who is Curzon?

[mephisto]

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

He was an English pianists who played mostly music of the Austro-German repertoire.

[elevateme_returns]

thank you rob47!!! first person to understand my post.

the . was for sarcastic effect, but seeing as you didnt seem to understand it i changed my story and made it look like a typing error in order to avoid a fuss. and look what i ended up with!! lol.

[elevateme_returns]

I'm always irritated, if someone talks to another person about sex, when he wants to offend him  ^^

for god's sake, its not sex, unless sex with your hand counts. why do you keep talking about sex when all franz said was wanker?