New website with complete Bach WTP II, Haydn Sonatas, Liszt Studies etc.

[prongated]

If you think I didn’t react on your alledged “argument” about the “rest” between bar 2 and 3, because I could not disproof it, you deceive yourself...

...I know I said I won't be back (and at least I'm not here to delve into musical arguments), but dude, you're quite amusing. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Are those "alleged arguments" that you quoted really lostinidlewonder's?

[Steffen Fahl]

...I know I said I won't be back (and at least I'm not here to delve into musical arguments), but dude, you're quite amusing. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Are those "alleged arguments" that you quoted really lostinidlewonder's?

Oh thats my fault, I am really sorry, you're right It was your one and only musical argument I was quoting. Thanks for that hint and excuse me both prongated and Lostindlewonder for confusing both, especially since I couln't find any likewise musical argument from Lostindlewonder anymore, that might justify to speak of an musical "opinion" he might has stated.

So here are the real authors and posts:

« Reply #72 on: January 04, 2010, 08:03:31 PM »

the rests between the phrases need to be more natural

« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2010, 05:57:59 PM »

e.g. between bars 2 and 3...

« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2010, 05:57:59 PM »

. I don't have the score handy

« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2010, 12:02:00 AM »

from sight-reading how I would approach it.

Sorry I don't wanted neither to take you wrong nor Lostindlewonder
I have checked it:

Sorry  I forgot Lostinindlewonder was the funny guy, who was that proud of his tons of  Youtube comments, that he felt authorized to state:

I do not even have to post anything to beat your recordings to a pulp, that has already been done, have a look on youtube and any of your recordings will be smashed to smithereens.

And even if his Index of the Auditionroom is honestly a great and important work for the pianostreet, i cant find anything that smashing in his three own definitly not all all played midifiles in that auditionroom.

But perhaps those otherts, who fiercly critizises my recordings, are just full of adoration for that kind of music. And if that would be their mostly favoured "real" kind of not "computerized" music, I'lll be glad and honoured if they go on criticising the mine because it differs somehow from that "smashing" example of "real" musical genius and knowledge .

best fahl5

[pianisten1989]

I've played the e major - xvi: 31 - and you skips slurs and just plays it through. Sorry to say, but you play like it was sight reading exercise. And it doesn't sounds like you have done loads of thinking about it. I wouldn't mind if it was a midi-file, made in finale och sibelis, but you are human right? So sorry, but that was really bad. He's obviously joking around with haft-tone steps during the whole sonata, and you just skips them all.
And what?!? Seriously! He's wrote repeats every like, 4th bar in the last movement, and you skips all of them. That's just not ok. It shows complete lack of both respect for the composer, and lack of imagination, since you don't know any way to variate each repeat.

please don't be one of those pianists who just mass-record all pieces there is, without a single though. Nobody likes them. And if you are really lucky, you'll sell you cds at gas stations for 5$.
...
And you even skip trills . Shame on you.

[Steffen Fahl]

He's wrote repeats every like, 4th bar in the last movement, and you skips all of them. That's just not ok. It shows complete lack of both respect for the composer, and lack of imagination, since you don't know any way to variate each repeat.

Sorry at least you obviously dont know which piece you are talking about. Here are the first four bars of the finale, as everybody who knows to read notes will see there are no repetitions at all. What impressing strenght of musical knowledge!!! Wow!!

Great, slowly It becomes a fun game to blame all thoses nonsens criticism with simple facts.
XVI-31Finale-Bar 1-4

I am shure you likewise are able to name each bar of each other slur, chromatic notes or trills I alledgdly "skips".

In fact in the finale there are the eightbargroups repeated and yes I didn't repeat them as it is not only a sign of less respect of the score, but quite common practice in interpretation to decide quite deliberatly to play a repetition notated or not. You will for instance find nearly every development of calssicals pianosonatas up to the early ones of Beethoven also with signs to repeat it, what often doesn't make real musical sens but is rather a musical convention. Likewise you will find most  of the repeats skipped in the great recordings of haydns late sonatas by Glenn Gould who is really a master of variation repeats in bach suites for instance. And this is not the only example of musically intended decision to skip notated repeats.

It is not that different in respect the slurs and trills you are looking for.
First show me the one you pretend that would be missing instead of stating that general but totally unproffed Nonsens. On the other hands you dont seem to know, where thoses slurs trills and so on came from. If you have ever read Carl Phillip Emmanuel Bachs "Versuch ueber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen" which was nearly contemporary to the development of Haydns Pianostyle you would have known that all those things were improvised in the music of the 18th century and the Notation just an attempt to give exsamples how thoses things might be applied, far from being a strict law that must be executed without any freedom. But this seems to me the main problem in your critics. You dont know, that scores are just the attempt of the musician to communicates his Ideas, but not pure Laws wihich just have to be executed.
So if that kind of correctness is the only way, you judge musical interpretation... poor guy!

After all, You know the story of Zoltan Koczis, who was picky enough to list up every single note Arthur Rubinstein has played "wrong" in his complete recording of the chopin waltzes?
Decide yourself who you think should be blamed in this story.

At least the people who bought recordings of chopin waltzes obviously knew quite  well to choose the musicaly more charming ones. So let me hear your absolutly new Version of at least the "repetitions" in the fourth bar I am so curious, since I have'nt heard them never before.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

.... excuse me both prongated and Lostindlewonder for confusing both, especially since I couln't find any likewise musical argument from Lostindlewonder anymore, that might justify to speak of an musical "opinion" he might has stated.

You should remove the word "anymore" in your statement because that implies that it was there before but its now gone (which is wrong because my musical critique still remains and also remains unchallenged).

Let me direct you to one of my critiques;

Your example:

One will notice that the LH notes are merely played with no musical understanding, they are just played, they all have equal volume and note quality, there is no indication of phrasing. The staccato in the LH has no musical context to it. ALso the RH has no sense of rubato and broadening of sound. The inner voice of your passage is clearly out of context.


Arrau example:

One notices the great respect that has been put into the musicality of the LH compared to the previous recording. The notes are all felt and are phrased appropriately, they are not just individually played to merely fill in the silence as in example 1. Immediately one can understand what the middle voice of this passage should sound like with musical context. Even with the note mistakes it is far superior musically compared to your example. One will also notice the masterful touches of rubato and broadening effects Arrau uses. How he brings the final part to the climax is wonderful, your recording has none of this. This is what music is about, not merely hitting the right notes with an estimated note quality/quantity what have you.

Please explain yourself in this case here any why you think your rendition comes even close to the correct musical understanding.

[iroveashe]

I stopped posting here because for some reason I couldn't play the audio files in my browser, now that lostin has posted it attached I can hear what everyone is talking about. All I hear is notes and notes but where is the music?

[Steffen Fahl]

Let me direct you to one of my critiques;
Your example:
One will notice that the LH notes are merely played with no musical understanding, they are just played, they all have equal volume and note quality, there is no indication of phrasing. The staccato in the LH has no musical context to it. ALso the RH has no sense of rubato and broadening of sound. The inner voice of your passage is clearly out of context.
Arrau example:
One notices that the great respect that has been put into the musicality of the LH compared to the previous recording. The notes are all felt and are phrased appropriately, they are not just individually played to merely fill in the silence as in example 1. Immediately one can understand what the middle voice of this passage should sound like with musical context. Even with the note mistakes it is far superior musically compared to your example. One will also notice the masterful touches of rubato and broadening effects Arrau uses. How he brings the final part to the climax is wonderful, your recording has none of this. This is what music is about, not merely hitting the right notes with an estimated note quality/quantity what have you.
Please explain yourself in this case here any why you think your rendition comes even close to the correct musical understanding.

Hi lostinidlewonder,
Thank you very much for becoming concrete right now. This is at least a more founded question than any others seemed to be able to.
The example you chose is a quite good one for your question, so I am quite pleased to inform you about my conception of this beautiful passage and what is all about with your critics.

You are right, that my understanding differs at that certain moment explicitly from the in many aspects wonderful interpretation of Arrau. What is he doing?  

Intrested in the beautiful melody of this passage he uses very much pedal and broad rubato what makes the passage quite similar to many schumann or chopin melodic Ideas Arrau is also well known to play so very well.

But is that really, what Liszt asked for at this very moment. There are unmistakeable signs in the score Arrau definitly ignores: The passage you chose is charakterized not only by the advice “a tempo” but especially in the left hand with “staccato e leggiermente”.

Both are nearly completely ignored by Arraus conception, which might sound quite romantic, but does not respect the advises Liszt himself gives for that passage. I have copied this first bars of this passage to proof what I said:

a tempo staccato e leggiermente

But still there is another kind of standard suspicion about my recordings alledgdly would have “none of this” rubato.

Here your prejudice are definitly deceives your ears.  Meanwhile in respect to the “a tempo” of this passage that I still understand not only being just a beautiful melody but in the same time a part of a chase ("Wilde Jagd"), to speak in pictures perhaps here not that tumultous than in the beginning but more lightly like chasing a rabbit or a deer I  don’t exaggerate the rubato.

But it is still far from being static in respect to the tempo. In fact it is true, that the 4 bar phrases are reflected in a more pushing faster tempo in the first two bars of the phrases, while the tempo slows down sligthly in the third and fourth bar of thoses phrases. Most obviuos at the end of the end of the second 4 bar phrase of this passage, where Liszt demands “languendo” but of course as I still try to keep this a chasing piece I don’t exaggerate this as much as Arrau it does.

To proof what it would really sound like if there would have been no rubato at all compare the sample of my recording to the just mechanical midifile I’ve posted above. Here I have seperated the very passage and put it in a comparable starting tempo than my interpretation. You will easily hear how there was no tempochanges following the structure of each single phrase as it is in my recordings.
- Staccato e leggieremente midi

- my version

check this and if you don't betray your ears by your prejudices and suspicions, you will see why I think my

rendition comes even close to the correct musical understanding.

Hi iroveshea
So if you still can't hear the difference between subtle rubato of my interpretation and the just statical tempo of the midifile, it would be no longer a problem of your browser, but more probable a problem of your ears. so try to run a metronome, at least this would help you to disproof thoses nonsens critics of a alledgedly "computerized" recording.
best
fahl5

[tea cup]

I have to say, I prefer the bass in staccato! but I would rather listen to Arrau's recording than fahl's sample. The sample is too perfect to be anywhere near "good"!

[Steffen Fahl]

Thanks for admitting, my interpretation at least has proofable musical reasons to differ from Arraus. My closer respect of the advises the score gives may also explain why there is such a difference in the amount of rubato applied:  

If you would play the "staccato e leggieremente" with the rubato Arraus shows, Your musical context will fell in parts after few notes since it is also the chasing tempo that still keeps the resulting quite dry sound together. Meanwhile you dont risk that playing all together in one pedalsoup as it is more conventional in romantic piano interpretations.

Sure it is finally a matter of personal taste what music you prefer, but still the statement

too perfect to be anywhere near "good"!

sounds to me a kryptical bit of nothing, no one would have stated if the same recording would be called one of thoses officially accepted Masters like Arrau or Berezowsky etc.

I still have the impression the most people just trying to defend the fact, that my attempt is obviously a much more musically serious one that one is used to associate with digital or midi-recordings.  And not at all the kind of cheap mass rendering of scanned scores that would make it so much easier to ignore and condem and deny the work I have invested.

So wake up all together I am not biting anyone with my interpretations. It is just music I am interested, so there is nothing threatened anyone has to defend at all.

But feel free to check some more musically what I have done to assure yourself, that this is a real product of musical intention. Especially since I dont think my conception would be that "perfect" in all details and I am eager to learn aspects that are really worth to think about.

best
Fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

The passage you chose is charakterized not only by the advice “a tempo” but especially in the left hand with “staccato e leggiermente”.

Both are nearly completely ignored by Arraus conception

You obviously do not know what leggiermente means. It means lightly, and in your recording there is no lightness, it is ham fisted and sticks out like a sore thumb, no lightness in your interpretation at all. Arrau still does play the staccato however it is lightened with his touch, EXACTLY what is asked for in the score. I am afraid NO ONE WITH A MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE will agree with you here. If you want to remain in your oblivious world, well that's fine



You still REFUSE to address what I have presented and go off in your babbling which I don't think anyone understands really. HOW is your recording better than Arraus? You have ignored so many musical tools and stripped the etude bare, please explain why this is better?

[pianisten1989]

Yeah, sorry, I wrote 4th bar insted of 8th bar. I guess my musical knowledge sucks because i, by accident, wrote 4 instead of 8 =/

I am shure you likewise are able to name each bar of each other slur, chromatic notes or trills I alledgdly "skips".

Sure! The 4th note, the a#, in the left hand is clearly a hint, since it comes back several times. Like the octaves in the left hand, around 4 bars before the (I don't know the english word for it) "comeback" of the theme.
[/quote]

In fact in the finale there are the eightbargroups repeated and yes I didn't repeat them as it is not only a sign of less respect of the score, but quite common practice in interpretation to decide quite deliberatly to play a repetition notated or not. You will for instance find nearly every development of calssicals pianosonatas up to the early ones of Beethoven also with signs to repeat it, what often doesn't make real musical sens but is rather a musical convention.
[/quote]
You can't be serious about that, right? Don't you see the difference in repetition each 8th bar, and repetition twice in a whole movement?

It is not that different in respect the slurs and trills you are looking for.
First show me the one you pretend that would be missing instead of stating that general but totally unproffed Nonsens. On the other hands you dont seem to know, where thoses slurs trills and so on came from. If you have ever read Carl Phillip Emmanuel Bachs "Versuch ueber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen" which was nearly contemporary to the development of Haydns Pianostyle you would have known that all those things were improvised in the music of the 18th century and the Notation just an attempt to give exsamples how thoses things might be applied, far from being a strict law that must be executed without any freedom. But this seems to me the main problem in your critics. You dont know, that scores are just the attempt of the musician to communicates his Ideas, but not pure Laws wihich just have to be executed.
So if that kind of correctness is the only way, you judge musical interpretation... poor guy!

I rather not listen to your interpretation more than once, so I can't tell you about every skip. But  i am quite sure you skip the trill (2nd mov) right before the theme comes in G-major.
And just something to think about. Almost everyone says that your interpretations are bad. Maaaybe not all of us are wring. Think about that.

After all, You know the story of Zoltan Koczis, who was picky enough to list up every single note Arthur Rubinstein has played "wrong" in his complete recording of the chopin waltzes?
Decide yourself who you think should be blamed in this story.

Oh, so now you cpmpare yourself to Rubinstein. That's clever! But he did great interpretations, so pointing out misstakes are rather silly, but your interpretations aren't that great, (not even good), so it's kind of not the same thing..

At least the people who bought recordings of chopin waltzes obviously knew quite  well to choose the musicaly more charming ones. So let me hear your absolutly new Version of at least the "repetitions" in the fourth bar I am so curious, since I have'nt heard them never before.
best
fahl5

Yes, most people go for the good recordings. But don't you worry, there's hop for you! . Or no, there isn't =/

[Steffen Fahl]

Arrau still does play the staccato however it is lightened with his touch, EXACTLY what is asked for in the score. I am afraid NO ONE WITH A MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE will agree with you here. If you want to remain in your oblivious world, well that's fine
You still REFUSE to address what I have presented and go off in your babbling which I don't think anyone understands really. HOW is your recording better than Arraus? You have ignored so many musical tools and stripped the etude bare, please explain why this is better?

Oh you have now presented the Idea, that Arrau is able to play staccato with much of pedal. This is a quite curious idea, since you need dampers for staccatos, which are removed by the sustainpedal. I am not sure, if anyone with musical knowledge would be able to follow this paradox of this ingenius opinion.
Otherwise your are not quite polite with your statement to tea cup, who already admit that a staccatto is what Liszt demands not what Arrau does.
Even if Arrau is singing the melody with quite broad rubato, nothing of the pedal nor the broad rubato has anything to do with "leggieremente" which is not associated to the ingenius enlightment of your paradox statements, but much more asociated with brilliant kinds of fluency that would afford some more reluctance in the more declamatoric rubato Arrau applies here
Is there anything I have left to adress, please remind me since I would like to seriously discuss any serious remark.

Hi pianisten 1989
OK it is alas so true that you did not listened enough to the interpretation you are talking about neither have any Ideas of the common pratice and feedom of interpretation with deciding to play repeats or not.

First all concrete mistakes you pretend to hear are just wrong listened. There is the short trill played correctly in Bar 5 as notated in II. before the theme modulates to G-Major as it is the a# in the left hand in bar 3 of the III. So clean your ears before listening and keep your mouth unless you can proof what you are saying. Your musical knowledge don’t suck because of one mistakes, but because you cant proof anything right, you previously stated, which is quite probable, if you havent seriously listened the recording before judging.

And to make it clear it is not me who states to be Rubinstein, but your problem if you think think the misconception of Koscis would only depend on the fact, he took a recording of Rubinstein. Would you think it were more intelligent, if he would have criticised your play in that unmusical and picky way?

But as I already proofed Kosics was still more reasonable than your posting, since his remarks at least were right and proofable and not that kind of silly pretentions of which not a single one has standed the concrete examination. So just be careful and modest what you  are talking about, otherwise it doesn’t seem even to be probable that you have ever played the piece, if you even cant recognize the played pitch of the notes you pretend to study yourself.
best
fahl5

[pianisten1989]

Ofc I can hear the a# in the third mov.! But I really wan't talking about that. First of all, I meant the first movement. Second, it's not really about hearing the note, but how you hear it. You can either play it with  some thoughs behind it, or witout. You play without thinking why.

And btw, no need to answer this one. I just noticed you called yourself a genius, and only a great idiot calls himself a genius.

[Steffen Fahl]

Ofc I can hear the a# in the third mov.! But I really wan't talking about that. First of all, I meant the first movement. Second, it's not really about hearing the note, but how you hear it. You can either play it with  some thoughs behind it, or witout. You play without thinking why.

And btw, no need to answer this one. I just noticed you called yourself a genius, and only a great idiot calls himself a genius.

Just proof that I do anywhere "call me a genius". Otherwise blame your self for unobjectiv accusations like that!

By the way: One dont need to be a genius to call Koscis and people like him picky.

The problem with your postings is, that you are even not picky enough to criticise anything which is not disprofable.

But well taken the case, you just intend to talk no more about anything “skipped” as before, but now about subtlties and nuances of the musical speech of this piece, what one might understand - as you turn it now in the latest corrections of your uncanny critics.  

Even this might be disproofed looking on the very musical structure of the whole piece:

Only in some Editions this first movement has the temponotification “moderato” in others none. So there is no reason to claim any certain fixed tempo for sure.

And still “Moderato” is already not Andante, which would be a more typical tempo for couloring out single details that much you demands. But more important it is a classical sonata which aldready show nice theme-dualism between first and second theme, while the first one is the more strong dominant one what you can see in the large register it uses and its growth towards Bass Octaves and 16th note passages, it is more the second theme starting fom Bar 9 that invites to more lyrical colors since in its much higher range another understanding or interpretation is nearly impossible.

If I would do as you might suggest to play the first theme as lyrical as it should be the second, than the whole dualistic logic of the Sonata would break in parts and will become boring by its contrastless lyricism.

The 16th also are a clear sign not to play the Moderato to slow, since the possible brilliance of those runs, will turn than into stiff slow scales without nearly any lyrical or harmonic attraction. So in short  you have to chose a certain Tempo especially if you want to make the first theme a contrast to the second. And that is the reason one should not exaggerate the detailed soundcoloring ot the first theme.

Meanwhile again your Ears listened much to superficial because also the fist theme of mine recording relfect the different harmonic nuances you are talking about with different sound colours, but obviously more reluctant than you are used by your own interpretation, since the overall charakter of the first theme doesn’t allow to get slow to much it keeps the tempo more than the second theme.

Neverthelsess even this tempo is not at all strictly metronomic and is like all other discussed recordings able to disproof the false accuse of just “computerized” metrical correctness in every single bar.
So better learn to listen and criticise founded than just judging and accusing without knowledge and reason
Best
Fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

Oh you have now presented the Idea, that Arrau is able to play staccato with much of pedal. This is a quite curious idea, since you need dampers for staccatos, which are removed by the sustainpedal.

You fail if you think staccato cannot be played with a pedal.

....your are not quite polite with your statement to tea cup, who already admit that a staccatto is what Liszt demands not what Arrau does.

I am not ta;lking to teacup at all, just you. Whatever someone else says has ZERO relevance to what YOU have to say.

 

Even if Arrau is singing the melody with quite broad rubato, nothing of the pedal nor the broad rubato has anything to do with "leggieremente" which is not associated to the ingenius enlightment of your paradox statements, but much more asociated with brilliant kinds of fluency that would afford some more reluctance in the more declamatoric rubato Arrau applies here

Again a failure remark on your behalf. You are using technical musical terms without even knowing what you are talking about. You try to talk complicated to confuse people but really those with some knowledge know you are talking bullshit.

Is there anything I have left to adress, please remind me since I would like to seriously discuss any serious remark.

You have NOT addressed anything. You tend to think just because you reply to a post that you have solved your problems, unfortunately this is not the case! Just because you quote us and then talk whatever YOU want to talk about, doesn't actually mean that you have responded to the debate. In fact you respond then end up talking to yourself and arguing with yourself, you seem unable to concentrate on what people are discussing and instead inventing a discussion on your own.

I assure you that you will respond to my writing but have hardly any relevance to the discussion we are talking about. I am also HIGHLY suspicious that English is your 2nd language, and that you actually are the guy that did the webpage with all the recordings. Someone who spends their time to do a musical project like this then behaves the way you do, it just doesn't add up. Still we are not here to PROVE anything, but your rambling doesn't prove much.

[Steffen Fahl]

You fail if you think staccato cannot be played with a pedal.

Oh, of course you can play staccato with pedal but of course what you will hear are just sustained notes which has nothing to do with staccato at all, unless you invest the whole power of selfsuggestion. But that makes it to an esoterical joke but no longer to a real musical possibility.

The fact that you are confused does not disprove that leggieremente is translated with lightly and is mostly found in livly fluent brilliant passages which are not at all massiv in sound or slow in their movement. So if you dont know that and think "leggieremente" means to use pedal to get more soundvolume and to broaden the rubato, than I can't help you.

But of course becoming colloqial instead of being concrete shows the only real souvereign musical knowledge (at least in your opinion obviously).

I am still interested if you can proof me any other meaning of "leggieremente" than the one I have just characterized. Otherwise be more modest with claiming any musical knowledge and accusing others for alledged "failures".

Now I have heard the word "rambling" so often from people so neat and courteous like you or perfect_pitch. But since my english is as you know that bad, please give me any single example of reasonless "rambling" in my posts to let me know what ever you are talking about.

I just adressed all concret aspects you tried to name, if you didn't named anything else concrete, than your are right that I addressed anything since you didn't fomulate anything I could adress concretly.

I am also HIGHLY suspicious

That’s absolutly true, and perhaps the problem of our “discussion” since I try to understand your arguments, and just never adress the real fact, that there are none, but only endless suspicion against all and everything and the most against everything that might be proofed.

By the way:

“Someone who spends their time”

(sorry is english really your first language, or didn’t I just knew how singular and plural can be intermingeld by guys of real knowledge?)

finally you made me really confuse 
What is the problem now. Until now I thought in your eyes my whole project is the most horrible act of computerization music that should be railed on day and night. If my behaviour does not fit to that kind of musical horror, does that mean I argue to reasonable, objective proofable for that awful kind of project, or other just way round. This is really difficult to understand, so I am sure, you might help me.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

Oh, of course you can play staccato with pedal but of course what you will hear are just sustained notes which has nothing to do with staccato at all

Incorrect. I can show you countless examples of staccato written within legato ties, all you have to do is browse some Chopin for instance.

The fact that you are confused does not disprove that leggieremente is translated with lightly and is mostly found in livly fluent brilliant passages which are not at all massiv in sound or slow in their movement. So if you dont know that and think "leggieremente" means to use pedal to get more soundvolume and to broaden the rubato, than I can't help you.

How am I confused? You haven't pointed that out at all merely state it as a fact with nothing to back yourself up. Please explain how your recording pays attention to the lightness of the staccato indicated by Liszt. Your recording DOES NOT pay attention to it and merely plays the LH as an abrupt, harsh and short sounding stab of a note. If in your mind this is lightness then that is bewildering and at least that reveals to me your unorthodoxed way of listening to music which is by no means something that is accepted by the majority of piano music lovers.

I have not connected leggieremente with rubato or pedal, that was you talking to yourself arguing that fact. In fact Arrau's use of rubato is very subtle and not a BROAD use as you described and it has nothing to do with the lightness of the staccato, that is you chaining off into associative madness.

I am still interested if you can proof me any other meaning of "leggieremente" than the one I have just characterized. Otherwise be more modest with claiming any musical knowledge and accusing others for alledged "failures".

I have already revealed to you what the lightness is supposed to sound like with Arraus recording, if you FAIL to observe that, it is your short coming and I am sure you can pay a teacher to help you with this.

Now I have heard the word "rambling" so often from people so neat and courteous like you or perfect_pitch. But since my english is as you know that bad, please give me any single example of reasonless "rambling" in my posts to let me know what ever you are talking about.

The way you connect your sentences highlights to me that you have a good grasp of english and that you INTENTIONALLY make mistakes and confused logic in an attempt to irritate people perhaps?


I think your recordings have merit yes, but it is missing out a lot of musical understanding of piano playing. Your recordings are not just simply midi recordings, we can see some musical thought put into sections, but there are many sections where it is not good enough and in fact, detrimental to first time listeners ears.

[Steffen Fahl]

Incorrect. I can show you countless examples of staccato written within legato ties, all you have to do is browse some Chopin for instance.

I think I know exactly what you are talking about and think this is a pretty good example. If you take for instance in the last pages of the third Chopin Sonata. You explicitly find what you remind me: a staccato octave in bass with explicit pedalmarks and than a big leap of the left hand to a chord in the middle position of the keyboard. It is just what I said: a technical hint.

You play a staccato, but musically you get a sustained strong bassfundament for the following chord. Meanwhile to play a musical staccato which is notated would sound musically awful, since you wold not hear a sustained Bassfundament anymore. In my humble understanding this seemingly paradox could be solved if you see the difference between the technic to play and the resulting sound.

But this is quite different to the situation in "Wilde Jagd" Liszt explicitly demands pedal in nearly every bar directly before this "staccato e leggieremente" passage and stopped this nearly exact from this very moment on. Everything here must be read imho as an Advice, that Liszt want to have change the timbre of the whole texture in relation to the bars before.

And this is what Arrau ignores when he just went on using the pedal against the fact there Liszt explicitly do wants another timbre and showed this by the fact that the use of the pedal is stopped and “staccato e leggieremente" demanded.

Did You see what the difference is. When Chopin demands Staccato with pedal, so we just have to follow him and will play technically staccatos which resulting in musical sustained notes.

But in Wilde Jagd it is not Liszt but the arbitrary decision of Arrau which is not at all founded in the very Text of the score we received from Liszt.  

Please explain how your recording pays attention to the lightness of the staccato indicated by Liszt. Your recording DOES NOT pay attention to it and merely plays the LH as an abrupt, harsh and short sounding stab of a note.

This is at least a matter of personal judgement how harsh you describe my interpretation of the passage. I will not dispute your personal taste but it is impossible to found musical discussion on individual personal judgements of taste and they does not gain any grain of convincing by just pretending that you think all do feel the same thing you do.  In fact I would be more carefully in pretending being more than just the one person you are speaking for: Youself.

If in your mind this is lightness then that is bewildering and at least that reveals to me your unorthodoxed way of listening to music which is by no means something that is accepted by the majority of piano music lovers.

Oh this seems to me much more understanding than much I have heard in this thread before. Yes for sure my consequence in following the interpretation advises of the composers might appeare ar some points unorthodoxed, when it comes to deviate from conventional traditions of Interpretation, as it is likewise the fact that I try to work musically serious with sampled pianos. I know that this is experimental, and risky and irritating for many.

I partly understand that irritation but the other way is also true, as Gustav Mahler put it when the Viennese Philharmonic Orchestra were angry that Mahler went throu the whole score of a Mozart Symphony and asked for a consequently in the very text founded way to play. Answering the Musicians of the Orchestra, who stated: we play that piece more than hundert years, we know by heart how it must be played and how everybody is used to hear it and how everybody wants it to hear. so don’t try to tell us anything new about the Score. Mahler answered:  “Your unreflected Tradition is nothing but sloppiness!” Don’t mistake me again stating I would call me genius, Mahler or what so ever. But the Idea, that taking the score serious seems to me not that bad.

I have not connected leggieremente with rubato or pedal.

But with Arraus playing of this passage which is characterized by his quite broad rubato and pedal.

In fact Arrau's use of rubato is very subtle

This is again a matter of personal impression. As I say my interpretation is more strict in the tempüo at this passage, with out beeing mathematical in anyway. Compared to the rubato you can definitly hear in my recording corresponding to the phrasestructure of the passage, the rubato of Arrau is definitly much broader.

The way you connect your sentences highlights to me that you have a good grasp of english and that you INTENTIONALLY make mistakes and confused logic in an attempt to irritate people perhaps?

Definitly not! But if I recognize something which reveals some confusion in it self, I feel my duty to point out that problem.

I think your recordings have merit yes, but it is missing out a lot of musical understanding of piano playing.

this is not a matter of mere pretentions which one had to struggle for or defend, but to seriously discuss, since as you see most things others thought were a matter of wrong interpretation or missing taste or what soever turned out to be quite founded. Other wise I always stated that I would like very much to be convinced and learn about things I have to consider more but as Barenboim states it in his masterclasses: Music is nothing myterious, but has reason so what you do and think about shoul be reasonable to. So if the participants here were open to discuss, the dispute might be quite inspiring for me, the long as people just turn to become “colloquial”than it is obviosly not the case.

Your recordings are not just simply midi recordings, we can see some musical thought put into sections,

That was real a long way to go to hear that simple truth from anybody else here than me in this thread. Thankyou I think we are on a good way right now.

but there are many sections where it is not good enough and in fact, detrimental to first time listeners ears.

Even if this is not as fiercly formulated than others condemnations before, I would still avoid to talk like that to anybody working on music. What does not mean to hold back criticism. But it is quite a difference to show respect while criticising or to try to “smash” someone as you put it in a former posting.
I never would do or even think like this about others and hope that even this in parts not very friendly thread will not change my mind in this respect.
Best
Fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

...in "Wilde Jagd" Liszt explicitly demands pedal in nearly every bar directly before this "staccato e leggieremente" passage and stopped this nearly exact from this very moment on....

And this is what Arrau ignores when he just went on using the pedal against the fact there Liszt explicitly do wants another timbre and showed this by the fact that the use of the pedal is stopped and “staccato e leggieremente" demanded.

Unfortunately you have ignored the a capriccio marking early on in the passage.

Definition of a· ca·pric·cio (ä′ kə prē′c̸hō)
Musical Direction at (one's) pleasure; at whatever tempo and with whatever expression the performer likes

This statement immediately beginning the section of the espressivo section (of which we are considering the part after the repeated LH chords) indicates that the way you should tackle the passage is NOT mechanically.

Arrau's light use of the pedal in fact reveals THREE distinct voices when he plays the passage. The lower LH bass, the RH melodic singing voice and a center voice produced by both the RH and LH. Your recording merely reveals one mass of sound treating it as if it where almost a piece from Bach and adheres to sterile rules and regulations. And if Liszt wanted it so disjoint and seperated as you play, why didn't he write the LH as singlular quaver notes? Why did he group them in threes? And why are some of the Lh chords some of the notes are turned upwards while others are not, don't you think that Liszt is trying to reveal to us part of the inner voice here?

Fair enough you may interpret the passage as you like, but your version reveals nothing interesting in my professional opinion because it hides so much of the musical value which Arrau has revealed. Espressivo means to be expressive when you play, means to be able to form your musical voices clearly and make sure all of it is taken care of individually and with musical consideration. You have merely applied a general expression ignoring Liszt's encouragement of expressive playing to reveal as much as you musically can. Also why do you ignore the rallent which Liszt has clearly marked leading to the leggieramente e staccato (you do a poco poco poco rit )?

This is at least a matter of personal judgement how harsh you describe my interpretation of the passage. I will not dispute your personal taste but it is impossible to found musical discussion on individual personal judgements of taste and they does not gain any grain of convincing by just pretending that you think all do feel the same thing you do.  

I would be glad if your recordings inspired me to only enjoy what I am listening to. My analysis of your music is based not on personal issues but based on musical experience from working professionally in the field. Sure it may be only one professional opinion but I am yet to see an opinion other than your own that blows the trumpet of praise for your interpretations.

Yes for sure my consequence in following the interpretation advises of the composers might appeare ar some points unorthodoxed, when it comes to deviate from conventional traditions of Interpretation, as it is likewise the fact that I try to work musically serious with sampled pianos. I know that this is experimental, and risky and irritating for many.

At least you admit here you are unorthodoxed (and certainly you do not have some magical secret view into the composers intentions in the music that no one else knows about), in that case we can relax, this guy isn't trying to fool us, he's letting us know what he does is strange and not the norm.

This is again a matter of personal impression. As I say my interpretation is more strict in the tempüo at this passage, with out beeing mathematical in anyway.

The artificial and musically damaging evenness of your recordings highlights a mathematical exactness to your playing. That the tempo doesn't move with the natural flow of notes and melody and that you pay no respect to the musical tool of phrasing highlights an evenhanded mathematical approach to the music. The playing is so clinical that we are unable to hear the interactions of the many parts of the piece, instead it is a mass of sound with little understanding of how to voice each part individually.

[tea cup]

Sure it is finally a matter of personal taste what music you prefer, but still the statement  sounds to me a kryptical bit of nothing, no one would have stated if the same recording would be called one of thoses officially accepted Masters like Arrau or Berezowsky etc.

So you agree, the recordings of Arrau and Berezowsky aren't perfect, and that is why they're better!

[iroveashe]

Hi iroveshea
So if you still can't hear the difference between subtle rubato of my interpretation and the just statical tempo of the midifile, it would be no longer a problem of your browser, but more probable a problem of your ears. so try to run a metronome, at least this would help you to disproof thoses nonsens critics of a alledgedly "computerized" recording.
best
fahl5

You're confusing what rubato means. I don't listen with a metronome, I do with my ears and brain, so what matters is not how the sound matches or not the beat of a metronome, but how I or anyone percieves that sound. If several, experienced listeners, tell you it sounds computerized, there's no arguing with their perception. If I took a bucket that says 'Red Paint' on the label, painted a wall and then asked people's opinions, and all they see is an orange wall, you can't argue that. You could go into explaining everything you want: make a whole essay on how the light effect bouncing against the walls in such and such position, the rest of the room being in this or that color so that to the eye that is conditioned by the surrounder colors making it look orange but it is in fact red, etc.; but the explanation does not substitute for the fact that if you wanted to send a message (let's say you wanted to give the impression of blood), it simply does not matter if you're color blind, if the bucket was mislabeled or if everyone else in the world was color blind except you, the point remains that you're not delibering your message in an effective way.

So, just because it's not in parlallel with a metronome does not mean it's rubato, true rubato is much more subtle and complicated to make, and should sound more natural to the ear. I could tell right away that your recording wasn't on a square, perfect tempo, and I also could tell right away that it sounds very awkward and unnatural. And I don't care how you produce the sound, if that was you, playing with your fingers on a real piano, I'd say it's a very mechanical interpretation. The sound you make is not the important part, it's not the destination, it's only the road, and you should see that it's not going anywhere with classical music.

The best analogy I can think of to show you what I mean is animation. The technology is pretty advanced now but if you look back at animated movies, like Pixar, you see that the main characters are either stuff that is not supposed to talk (objects, animals) or cartoonish-looking people, and that's because real-lookng people seem very awkward and artificial (you can see that in other movies that attemted this, or in videogames). In fact, I think that's the best word to describe the feeling I get from your recordings, artificial.

[Steffen Fahl]

Unfortunately you have ignored the a capriccio marking early on in the passage.

Sorry this is just eight bars before the passage we are talking about and is very useful for thoses eight bars where you also in my recording can perceive the tempo changes with more freedom than before, but as I stated before that does not justify to ignore that Liszt has marked in many ways that he wants a change in the sound of the passage we are talking about.

Arrau's light use of the pedal in fact reveals THREE distinct voices when he plays the passage.

This you definitly perceived in the score, and I am glad to notice that you looked in the score which makes discussing much more objectiv. But you can't hear hardly two and absolutly not three independent voices in Araus playing. And pretending that gives me some doubts in your ears.
But stay on the level of the composition, because one reason why you will never be able to hear "three distinct" voices in any interpretation of this passage is the simple fact, that there are just two and not three. The “distinct” voice that you think may result of the upper notes of the chords is nothing else but the lower octave of the melody in the discant. So it is great, that you look in the score but if so, please read more carefully before stating anything which isn’t  really there like the pretended “center voice produced by both the RH and LH”

Your recording merely reveals one mass of sound

So we are back at the point where pretentions and judgements of individual personal taste replaces open minds and open ears. This is nothing we can discuss about, since If I were the opinion that what I play will sound the  way you described it I of course would not have played like that. But discussing that way will end up with juxtaposing statements like “it is” “ no it is not” “sure it is“ “ no it is definitly not”.

if Liszt wanted it so disjoint and seperated as you play, why didn't he write the LH as singlular quaver notes? Why did he group them in threes?

Because grouping notes does not at all mean notes have to be played legato it just makes the perception of the notes easier for the one who pratices them. Otherwise you will get severe problems with the whole pianomusic written since Bachs times.

And why are some of the Lh chords some of the notes are turned upwards while others are not, don't you think that Liszt is trying to reveal to us part of the inner voice here?

Sorry you did’nt read the notes as I have already showed this is in no way any kind of distinct inner voice but just the slightly metrical displaced octave of the melody, no one would ever hear as distinct melody but more as a kind of pianistic orchestration of this melody.

in my professional opinion

Did you have such a poor confidence in the convincing objectiv reasons of your opinion, that you need to repeat one time after the other that you want to be taken as “professional”. If so let me tell you definitly: I am far from being professional and far from claiming anything like this for me. I just love music I don’t need no pretended “professional” authority for things I do and think. But still I am able to disproof nearly all substancless suspicions stated in this thread by simple facts and still I am able to proof that the things I have done are seriously done and with well reflected musical reasons.

Espressivo means to be expressive when you play, means to be able to form your musical voices clearly and make sure all of it is taken care of individually and with musical consideration. You have merely applied a general expression ignoring Liszt's encouragement of expressive playing to reveal as much as you musically can.

Sorry as I showed you are eight bars to early here. Please try to stay with the passage we are talking about.

Also why do you ignore the rallent which Liszt has clearly marked leading to the leggieramente e staccato (you do a poco poco poco rit)?

At least you admit I have done something and not my computer. And thanks god you have realized that my tempo is changing to. I have already given the reasons earlier, why I don’t think one have to apply the rallentando that excessivly but of course with the discssion of the amount of rubato we are inside the realm of interpretational freedom and in so far it is fo sure a matter of taste. As I said I respect your taste and will not dispute it. So respect the mine that is based on another understanding of this passage as explained earlier.

I would be glad if your recordings inspired me to only enjoy what I am listening to. My analysis of your music is based not on personal issues but based on musical experience from working professionally in the field. Sure it may be only one professional opinion but I am yet to see an opinion other than your own that blows the trumpet of praise for your interpretations.

professional, professional, professional, professional, professional…. ( I can’t see anything convincing in statements like that as I cant in any kind of pretended majorities since I am sure you know that the majority doesn’t listen to Liszts Studies at all but more to Lady Gaga or nonsens like that)

At least you admit here you are unorthodoxed (and certainly you do not have some magical secret view into the composers intentions in the music that no one else knows about), in that case we can relax, this guy isn't trying to fool us, he's letting us know what he does is strange and not the norm.

Yes of course I don’t have any “magical secret” like your mantra “professional”. I only have the score and find ion there enough reason for what I do just in the simple facts written in there. Yes I am glad and proud to be not “the norm” since I am alive and individual and I wish everybody will be more than just the fullfilment of a norm.

The artificial and musically damaging evenness of your recordings highlights a mathematical exactness to your playing.

Here your condemnations are just leaving the proofable facts and this is what ist hat annoying with that constantly repeated assault of being  mathematical exact. In truth many of those recordings you can hear in Auditionrooms of the pianoforums of the world reveal a much more stiff and sterile soulless mathematical exactness and less of musical differentiation of the different voices and their phrasing which you can hear followed in colour and subtle tempo changes for nearly any phares of the hunderts of recordings on my site. But by the simple fact that I work with samples you feel authorized to pretend a mathematical exactness my recordings will disprove in every single bar.

Hi tea cup,
This is reasoning with the unreasonable. But behind your statement is just the same suspicion you share with the most others. That thoses Bach, Haydn, and Liszt recordings were products of a kind of inhumane, unmusical automatisation without any personal musical intention. And if it were so let me correct your prejudice. Because as you can see we are all discussing questions of more or less rubato, differentiated articulation phrasing and so on. Which all are not available without a warm thinking and feeling musical intention behind.

Hi iroveashe,
Sorry it moreover seem to me that you confuse the word subtle. Since Arraus rubato is everything else but subtle or complicated. It is just massive compared to the more slightly but very detailed tempochanges of my recording reflecting the structure of every single phrase and harmonic change.
You still are obviously driven by the prejudice and suspicion that I have not at all played the music on my site as it reveals a wording like:“if that was you, playing with your fingers on a real piano, I'd say it's a very mechanical interpretation”

So if you just hear this it, might likewise have its reason that you just listen to your own prejudices against someone who is working with samples instead of wooden instruments and those preudice deceive your ears, as it was with the Bach comparison we have had earlier, where the appreciated “real” version was much more stiff and sterile metrical inflexible than the much more fluently tempo changing interpretation on my site and no one noticed that at all. This is what makes me quite sceptical against ears the louder and the more general and absolute they pretend to judge.
Best
Fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry this is just eight bars before the passage we are talking about and is very useful for thoses eight bars where you also in my recording can perceive the tempo changes with more freedom than before

You are again incorrect in this assessment. It started earlier on because this is when this expressive passage begins, even though after this we still stay on the same theme and melody. So if you think it should be disjoint from each other, you have no musical understanding to back you up there. No sorry, you have not answered my question still.

And just because you have microscopic use of tempo controls doesn't mean that you haven't played this through a computer still. I can do better tempo controls with Midi

[odd_wanderer]

Fahl5, you totally missed one of Iroveashe's rather important points: that your audience's perception of your interpretation is what matters here. They hear your playing a certain way and if that way is not at least close to your intentions, you (YOU) are not expressing yourself very well. Sometimes your audience will be inexperienced, passive, or not listening, but that doesn't seem to be the case right now. If someone said that they heard something a certain way, they are right because it's their perception; you can't argue that they heard something else. This all applies to their opinion(a) too of course.  

For that matter, what are you lot arguing about? You came here to find an audience and their opinions. They gave you their attention and opinions so, now what?

[thalbergmad]

For that matter, what are you lot arguing about?

No idea, I gave up days ago as once one has given their impression there is no more to be said.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

My brains might have some deterioration, but i fail to see the point everybody makes issues about. That site is only to give people a global idea of music of these composers, why should there even be near-perfect recordings? The more serious audience search for their favourite performers anyway, and for the less serious audience these recordings do just fine.

Nice work spreading the 'musical word', mr website owner

Gyzzzmo

[thalbergmad]

The more serious audience search for their favourite performers anyway, and for the less serious audience these recordings do just fine.

Agreed, but i would exchange the word "these" for "Hamelin's"

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi gyzzmo, Hi thal
I totally understand what you ask and personally have some doubts in the musical judgement exposed here, when I compare it to many of quite charming compliments you can read at many of Auditionroom entries and the music you can actually listen in those entries, which no one even dares here to relate to in comparison to the recordings on my site (beside the fact, that it nearly sems as if the whole Auditionroom didn’t show that much more music than you can find on my page.)
That’s the reason why I sometimes try to remind the people who judge who they are themselves and for what reason they think to be allowed for a often such destructiv, unprecise, general and superficial criticisme. Just remind that the most guys here talk for days just about two very short moments of one piece, while there are still hunderts of recordings any body presumably have even listened at all.
If you ask why I discuss, here is my answer:
1) there are some discussions about details of single interpretations. I would not have posted my Site here, if I didn't like to discuss that seriously.
2) there are some misunderstandings concerning the things I did, I think I have to correct.
3) there are very much unreflected inprecise and partly impertinent judgements I just wonder what gives anyone the right to become so primitive in talking about others work.

Hi odd_wanderer,
It seems as if you missed, that I have already adressed that point several times. But once again for you: your and anyones just individual judgment of taste is - as far it does not relate to any objective reason - just nothing one can dispute or discuss. And I stated it earlier I respect, and accept that there are different kinds of taste but just don't call it an argument for anything as far it could not be founded in any concrete aspect one can talk about.

But if so, and that has been definitly the case for some postings judgements were based on statements about musical proofable facts, I am interested to understand those aspects and examine them by my self. And if I found than, that thoses seemingly concrete arguments turn out to be just statet nonsens, like the broadly discussed "rest between the second and third bar" which alledgdly has to be played another way to mark the End of a phrase, and it was just in the middle of a phrase, than I ask myself, why does someone argue with false facts?
as you will easyly recognize again in the following:

Hi lostindlewonder
I know that you produce  midifiles, but the three one can listen at pianostreet are far to be a proof of pretended ability to program any kind of realistic musical pianomidifile. As I said if you like we can get in Details about that as soon you want.

It is a pitty that again you didn't understood what you have superficially seen in the score. The lack of understanding seems to me on  your side if you call all that “one passage” and cant see that at "staccato e leggieremente" nearly everything is fundamently changed, so with a bit musical knowledge you can’t simply pretend at all that the passage starts eight bars earlier. See what changes at the "staccato e leggieremente":
1) the melody is a whole octave lower, before than after (you would not give that to the same singer or Instrument if you would compose something like that for an ensemble.)
2) The phrase of the eight bars before is formed on a little cadenca in Eb-Major has already came back to its melodic and harmonic startingpoint in the sixth bar after your “un poco rit a capricioso” remark. In the last two bars a rallentando and modulation shows the composition is leading to a new passage which starts now in another tonality: c-minor at "staccato e leggieremente" so everything marks notably that one passage is ended and another passage begins.
3) the texture of the accompanement is fundamantally changed compared to the eight bars before: rhythmicly very characteristic repeated octavechords with an orguepoint on e (can I tell it like this in english) in the eight bars before without any kind of "inner voice as you claim it for the discant of the chords in the "staccato e leggieremente" part, and a regular eightnote figure in the "staccato e leggieremente"-part with moving fundamentalnotes.
I dont see nearly anything that is not fundamently changed when the advise "staccato e leggieremente" comes. So if I didn’t know that you are triying to defends Arraus interpretation I just had no Idea how anyone who can read notes can argue like that.
Best
Fahl5

[Steffen Fahl]

Agreed, but i would exchange the word "these" for "Hamelin's"

Thal

Oh that was an inspired one.
Nice to have some clowns here around
best
fahl5

[gyzzzmo]

Oh that was an inspired one.
Nice to have some clowns here around
best
fahl5

Thal is our forum clown, but i love his camel and monkey imitation too

[lostinidlewonder]

I think we have done enough to try to educate fahl5 on the lack of his musicality of his music. The more we prove it to him the more he goes off into his own world trying to prove things to himself. Oh well, not everyone can be saved

[gyzzzmo]

I think we have done enough to try to educate fahl5 on the lack of his musicality of his music. The more we prove it to him the more he goes off into his own world trying to prove things to himself. Oh well, not everyone can be saved

Please speak for yourself, since there are people (like me) who think fahl did a nice job, because the (free) music on his site serves its purpose. The 'interpretations' might not always be generally liked, but does that really matter?

Gyzzzmo

[thalbergmad]

I still maintain that it would be a good idea to divert this project to works that are completely unkown.

A Leopold de Meyer series would be complete fun.

Thal

[iroveashe]

Hi iroveashe,
Sorry it moreover seem to me that you confuse the word subtle. Since Arraus rubato is everything else but subtle or complicated. It is just massive compared to the more slightly but very detailed tempochanges of my recording reflecting the structure of every single phrase and harmonic change.


So if you just hear this it, might likewise have its reason that you just listen to your own prejudices against someone who is working with samples instead of wooden instruments and those preudice deceive your ears, as it was with the Bach comparison we have had earlier, where the appreciated “real” version was much more stiff and sterile metrical inflexible than the much more fluently tempo changing interpretation on my site and no one noticed that at all. This is what makes me quite sceptical against ears the louder and the more general and absolute they pretend to judge.
Best
Fahl5

By subtle I mean more natural, it's not a matter of quantity, but of quality. Your rubato does not sound natural, but rather clumsy and very obvious. Why? I don't know, I don't care. You're assuming that I have prejudice against whatever you use to make this recordings but how can that be right if I don't even know how you make them? By complicated, I meant complicated to make, not to listen. You can't know how complicated it was (or not) for mister Arrau to decide on how he'd use the rubato in his performances, while he was practicing.

You still are obviously driven by the prejudice and suspicion that I have not at all played the music on my site as it reveals a wording like:“if that was you, playing with your fingers on a real piano, I'd say it's a very mechanical interpretation”

I don't see the point there. I mean if a) you simply played the Liszt lostin attached on a digital piano and just uploaded it; or b) you played it and digitally edited; or c) you made it from scratch with your computer; the result remains the same, it is not a satisfactory performance.

Perhaps you're the one biased because you made this recordings yourself, you put a lot of work and effort and you know exactly why you did this and why you changed that, etc. so you're not seeing the full picture and you're not listening to your own recordings with fresh ears.

[gyzzzmo]

I still maintain that it would be a good idea to divert this project to works that are completely unkown.

A Leopold de Meyer series would be complete fun.

Thal

Agreed, that would make the site alot more interesting, although to get those unknown pieces more accesable you'll need more hits and thus famous pieces too.

[prongated]

The 'interpretations' might not always be generally liked, but does that really matter?

Yes it does - very much so. Why else would there be such a huge racket to begin with? Read again his original post.

Hi I'm new here and just want to introduce me here with my brandnew Music-Homepage
 klassik-resampled
with thousands of minutes of mp3-recordings I produced in the last 5 Years with several high quality sample Libraries, to proof, wether they can meet the musical demands of reasonable classical interpretations.

[gyzzzmo]

Yes it does - very much so. Why else would there be such a huge racket to begin with? Read again his original post.

demand of whom, the average internet surfer?
also, there are lots of different interpretations between master pianists, who decides whats the right one?

[prongated]

demand of whom, the average internet surfer?
also, there are lots of different interpretations between master pianists, who decides whats the right one?

...huh?!? That's utterly irrelevant to this post! The point remains: the OP wanted to see what people think of his 5-year masterworks (and not just on the matter of "interpretation", if you haven't noticed), and that's what he's getting here! Comprehend much?

[thalbergmad]

Yeh, I think he knows now what people think

[lostinidlewonder]

Please speak for yourself, since there are people (like me) who think fahl did a nice job, because the (free) music on his site serves its purpose. The 'interpretations' might not always be generally liked, but does that really matter?

We where discussing some aspects of his recordings which where very much a failure in musical terms. There is nothing interesting about his interpretations on a musical perspective and it really does matter, as I mentioned before people who have little experience with piano music may get the wrong idea of what a piece should sound like (and those who have experience grimace at the electronic interpretations). Some who listen to fahl5 recordings will think Oh Liszt wrote pretty one dimensional and never really understand the breadth of the music.  But of course not everyone can tell the difference between a computer and human playing, in that case it won't matter for you (but that is a short coming on your behalf).

I still maintain that it would be a good idea to divert this project to works that are completely unkown.

I agree because that serves a greater purpose then. To do pieces that have been extensively recorder seems to me somewhat useless (unless of course these recordings are used in a digital piano in its demo mode). To do pieces that has no recordings at all is very good because it would serve as a teaching tool to reveal to those what the notes of a piece should generally sound like.

[iroveashe]

demand of whom, the average internet surfer?

It's said on the post, demands of the music

[Steffen Fahl]

I wished I would hear what you think, but it is quite difficult to find much "thought" in what the most post here.

Isn't it quite a joke that people seem to consent now that one "should" record unknown compositions and composers like that, while no one realizes, that there are already lots of absolutly unknown compositions and composers from more than 400 Years of keyboard music on my site.

Its not me, but you guys who ignore how much unknown music of all kind is already everywhere on the site.

None of you lost any single word about the Carl Reinecke Prelude in the Flashplayer just on the startsite, none of you abot the music of Robert Kahn already linked on the startsite, none about, Clara Schumanns op.9, Josef Anton Steffans Cappriccio, Mozarts Fantasie in C-Major, Georg Anton Bendas Movement from a Piano Concert, Henri Litollf, Scherzo, or Piano piece, and those are just a few of much more unknown compositions you may find on my site.

What do we learn from that, the people here constantly post before checking if the thing they write has any reason. How should I see any reasonable thought in those litarally "ignorant" (sensu stricu: not knowing) statements?

I even have directly asked you thalberg_mad, what you think about the Robert Kahn Quintet-Movement. But no reaction. and Days later what an brilliant Idea: "one should divert".

Guys divert your Eyes before you divert your judgements.

But that reveals just the same fact as in respect the very music you pretend to know, where nearly all statements of your pretended "unfailable musical proffesional knowledge" are disproved in every single pretention about what is written in the score.

If the music in the score is not your world, I dont mind, that you think I am living in another world than you. more:  I am proud of.

I never spoke of "masterworks" in any place but not more and not less than interpretation. If you now try to arbitrarily missunderstand my wording that constantly, it is quite clear who is biased here.

fahl5

[thalbergmad]

None of you lost any single word about the Carl Reinecke Prelude in the Flashplayer just on the startsite, none of you abot the music of Robert Kahn already linked on the startsite, none about, Clara Schumanns op.9, Josef Anton Steffans Cappriccio, Mozarts Fantasie in C-Major, Georg Anton Bendas Movement from a Piano Concert, Henri Litollf, Scherzo, or Piano piece, and those are just a few of much more unknown compositions you may find on my site.

I will eventually, but I am 3 weeks behind with my listening as Santa gave me lots of CD's for Christmas

Apart from Robert Khan, all of those composers you mention are well known to me.

Luv

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

I will eventually, but I am 3 weeks behind with my listening as Santa gave me lots of CD's for Christmas

What doesn't mean anything else than that you are 3 weeks to early for any judgement, thats what is the litarally meaning of "prejudice" isn't it?

Apart from Robert Khan, all of those composers you mention are well known to me.

Great you know the composers, but I can't see any recording of any mentioned pieces in all years of the pianostreet auditionroom. Beside Mozart all named composer are even not at all present with any recording in your holy grail of musical knowledge called Audition room. Wow!

Is it really necessary that you guys here blame yourself with every single suggestion you put here, to present such an "proffesional" musical knowledge.

What a crown of musical "professionality" to play a beethoven sonata and therefore feel yourself to be the brother of Claudio Arrau. Wow!!


but

...If anything is real in this thread,

than it is the simple fact that you are definitly not

fahl5

[thalbergmad]

What doesn't mean anything else than that you are 3 weeks to early for any judgement, thats what is the litarally meaning of "prejudice" isn't it?

Great you know the composers, but I can't see any recording of any mentioned pieces in all years of the pianostreet auditionroom. Beside Mozart all named composer are even not at all present with any recording in your holy grail of musical knowledge called Audition room. Wow!

1. I made a judgement on what I had already heard. From what i see from your postings so far, you will simply not accept any negative comments at all.
2. I am certain that the Audition room here represents but an extremely small percentage of what is listened to by the average member of this forum.
3. I think people have been very tolerant with you so far, by I must admit you are starting to get on my tits.

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

I think we have done enough to try to educate

Huh now he becomes definitly megalomaniac.

What great unfailable "proffesional" knowledge did you want to teach me.
- not to read the score and to be disproofed over and over again?
- to take suspicion as arguments ?
- speak english without to determine if there is just one or the whole World of lostinidlewonders is speaking?
- produce midifiles like those three you posted in this audition room
- becoming coloquial for lack of serious arguments

Oh well, not to be educated by guys like you is the best way to be be saved for everyone at all
but the most easy thing for you perhaps:

please think before post anything further!

[thalbergmad]

Why can't you just accept that not everyone likes what you have done and they don't have to be Liszt to say so??

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

1. I made a judgement on what I had already heard.

And this was obviously nearly nothing if you still think you can propose and demand things of my site the whole pianostreet can't mesure up at all. as it is with your just "ignorant" in the meaning of absolutly uninformed suggestion my site should contain some less known composers.

From what i see from your postings so far, you will simply not accept any negative comments at all.

Yes I cant accept them if they are neither founded in any knowledge of the music on my site you guys here arbitrarily judge as immodest as if here are that much recordings in your audition that would meet the demands you think you may pose for my recordings.

2. I am certain that the Audition room here represents but an extremely small percentage of what is listened to by the average member of this forum.

Oh, I thought your "proffesional" knowledge of music would have to do more with playing. If it is just a forum for privat enthusiast, than it is at least astonishing with what impudence they are ready to judge before any seriuos examination of the matter they judge.

3. I think people have been very tolerant with you so far, by I must admit you are starting to get on my tits.

This is just unbelieveable...
Must I really call you up every single posting where guys like perfect_pitch or Lostindlewonder loose countenance becomming colloquial, just by the fact, that they can't disproof the facts i showed, without any comparable harsh reaction  on my side as it is nearly common for the most who post here.??

Your tolerance is obviously just a tolerance for guys like perfect_pitch who didn't contribute anything musical at all.
Wake up from your dreams of selfsuggested majority and realize what you guys are doing here!
And dont be astonished, if after days of attempts to bring back even the most awkward argument to a serious musical discussion I myself just begin to judge what you guys are doing in this thread. And even now, you will not find not a single word what will loose the countenance as most of thoses harsh critics seem to be just used to do. 

I am not railing blindly, but I do think, it is nothing wrong with it to remind you what you are doing and who you are. Sorry if that is not that amusing  as it would be to post one superficial comment after the other.

I myself prefer to be honest instead of amusing...

If they would easyly just don't like the music, they might say I dont like and thats it. But that was definitly not what they did. They tried to argue and failed, and got angry whenéver they must percieve that simple fact. All thoses discussions are everything else but just simply stating: "I dont like." And you know that. As I said already a dozen times I accept everybodys taste. But as far you begin to argue you should not be angry if you may meet better arguments and it was not me who became colloquial, when ever arguments were gone.
best
fahl5

[thalbergmad]

There is no argument. Some people like what you have done and some people do not. If they do not, they do not have to justify themselves with 300 sheets of A4. And if they did, you would still not accept it.

I have just sampled one of my farts and using award winning programme, i am going to turn it into a Haydn Sonata.

That would have as much value as anything on your site.

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

There is no argument. Some people like what you have done and some people do not. If they do not, they do not have to justify themselves with 300 sheets of A4. And if they did, you would still not accept it.

But they were impudent enough to argue more.
If they behaved just as you stated. Everything would be nice.
Just saying I like, or I dont like. And I dont have no problems at all to accept it.
But you know yourself they alledge lot of simply wrong things that went far beyond just stating "I like" or I dont llike"
And when it comes to just pretending wrong facts, they must have the "tolerance" to be disproved by the simple facts as they really are. It was not me who started that discussion , but just me who brought it back to the simple facts, what ever else was alledged but than the simple statement "I dont like" or "I like".

I have just sampled one of my farts and using award winning programme, i am going to turn it into a Haydn Sonata.

Oh that seem to me a very selfcriitcal mark of insightful self-concept. Congratulation. I ever thought that would obviously the result if you would try what I did. And from the confession of your failure I really understand why you react that sensible on my recordings;-)
best
fahl5