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

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi Thalbergmad,
1) It is the composer my musicological thesis was about. One of the very few Pupils of Brahms antd composition teacher of W. Kempf and Arthur Rubinstein, that was forced by awfully ignorant germans in what we call "inner imigration" and than to imigration to Great Britain england, while he has after a musical quite productive and succesful life in the first 30 Years of the 20th century from one day to the other no more musical enviromnment anymore. So he pt all his musical thought in a "Diary in notes" he continues to write up to 1950 which grew to an immens Cycle of wonderful intelligent lateromatic pieces. You will find a Cantatamovement and a Pianoquintett movement I have programmed right from the manusskript on my page as well as a Link to my Article about him in the LexM of the University Hamburg in the text of the Startsite of my musicpage.
2) You are right that was exactly the order in which I proceeded.
- First Bach, thats why the WTC- is already off again from my site because the beginner problems of thoses recordings bother myself to much to keep it online. 
- Than the complete Haydn which was quite fun and I have rarely heard anyone who didnt really like it.
- Than Liszts complete Etudes
- Than Messieans Vingt Regards sut l'enfant Jesus" which I can't put online by copyright reasons  Beside that I developped more and more skills to work with other samplesets like Orchestra, Chambermusic, etc. And meanwhile those partitions are really totally "programmed" I didnt start to work with other Samplesets after having worked years and diligent on pianomusic, just to develop a feeling for the Correspondance of editing mididata and the musical intentions i bear in my mind.
best
Steffen

[thalbergmad]

How extraordinary that Robert Kahn lived only 25 miles from where I live now. What a small World it is.

I have never heard any of his works, but i do like other Brahms inspired composers such as Volkmann, Brull, Rontgen and Rufinatscha, but I would have thought that with the later Romantics, you could not be choosing harder material to realise digitally?

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi Thalbergmad

How extraordinary that Robert Kahn lived only 25 miles from where I live now. What a small World it is.

So if you are not from Mannheim, Berlin or Feldberg/Mecklenburg you must live near by Biddenden/Kent or Ashton /Surrey?

Hey thats great, While I even found living contemporary witness of his Feldberg Residence I never found anyone in Great Britain who could even tell the least thing about his last Years. Al I knew was from Letters to his Brother and other Friends.

I have never heard any of his works, but i do like other Brahms inspired composers such as Volkmann, Brull, Rontgen and Rufinatscha, but I would have thought that with the later Romantics, you could not be choosing harder material to realise digitally?

Yes I like Robert Volkmann (which was indeed hungarian) to quite much and teached some of his easier Pieces when I gave Pianolessons. I know a bit about Bruell, Roentgen but I am not so familiar with their Works - I have a few Copies of Pianopieces of Roentgen but not that much. Rufinatscha I have heard just the name.

But if you like that kind of music, give my two recodings of him on my site a try.
They are my first attemps with his music.
I wonder if they could pass your severe judgement,
at least I think they already profit from the high quality of Kahns compositions.

Best
Steffen

[thalbergmad]

Biddenden in Kent is only a half hour drive from where i live. It is famous for Siamese Twins who were born in the Town over 900 years ago.

I am very much interested in the history of Kent, so i will see if i can find out any information about his time spent living there.

Thal

PS Do not take too much notice of my comments, I am prone to idiocy.

 

[Steffen Fahl]

Biddenden in Kent is only a half hour drive from where i live. It is famous for Siamese Twins who were born in the Town over 900 years ago.

Yeah, that fits to my prejudice about Great Britan full of the riches and oddest history.

I am very much interested in the history of Kent, so i will see if i can find out any information about his time spent living there.

Great let me know if you can find anything. The only thing I havew learned from his letters, that he and his wife stayed up to 1940 in Biddenden and changed than to Ashton/Surrey.
They were nearly 80 and lived quite retired in the very sens of the word. Thats why he could concentrate that much on his "Diary in notes"

PS Do not take too much notice of my comments, I am prone to idiocy.

Oh, it is not the first forum I have ever posted, and if you observed correctly, I know I could be persistant enough to mesure up with. 
best whishes to Great Britain
Steffen

[Bob]

The stuff I'm listening to doesn't sound that bad.  It does sound a litte computery though.  No reverb for sense of a room space and just a tightness, no natural breathing room.  Very clean though.  

How did you create these?

If you want to have some more fun, make a new user name and post some in the audition room.  See what people say then if they don't know it's a computer playing.  

[Bob]

I am noticing there doesn't seem to be much pedal.    And some spots do sound like straight computer repetition.  I guess the tone on each note is the same -- I'm hearing something that might be what others are talking about.  Maybe the background stuff needs more of a background tone.

Although for studying, being able to hear everything clearly is not bad at all.

Maybe I'm not that picky.  I'm not really offended by these.  Sounds like an interesting project.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi Bob,
Thanks for your kind reaction.
It might be true, that I prefer a more clear transparent sound. Correctly said each recording has a certain amount of reverb. I'll think about for future Projects.

Could you perhaps name me the pieces where you feel reminded to "computer" like repetitions? As far as I remember are the only longer repetitions in Ravel alborado gracioso, which is up to now listend just three times at all. That might help me understand what you are talking about.

But thanks for not being "that picky"
best
Steffen

[perfect_pitch]

Hi perfect_pitch (I have my doubts)

Well - doubt away, but I do have perfect pitch (hence the nickname) - I was born with the ability. Anyway, lets not get hung up on that.

What ever prejudice you suspect, please become concrete if you could or just let those unqualified fourletter things.

HUH??? Did anyone else manage to make sense of the last part of that sentence???

If you are realy interested and not just looking for a chaep pretext to fight the "digital danger", you'll find in the navigation menu of my site a link to my (german) biography ...///... about my last teacher beside the WTC II on my side since I dedicated it him

First of all - no one hear is scared of this so called 'digital danger' considering that the sound libraries are still second to the sound of a proper acoustic piano. There is no danger in Digital - it's just not good enough as of yet (and possibly never will.) Second of all - I did try that when I first went to your page - but I don't speak german. Thirdly - I didn't actually get if you play piano or not - Yes you dedicated the WTC to your professor, but did you actually play the pieces or just sound-sample a couple of random files???   

To judge if modern intruments are ready for serious interpretation, one must be able to recognize the problems of traditional instruments.

The PROBLEM with traditional instruments? You mean like the Piano? What problems do Grand pianos have that digitals don't??? I mean - after roughly 300 years of evolution - I think the piano is pretty much come to the pinnacle of perfection considering what it used to sound like in the 1700's... And once again - I have to point out that considering every single sound library is trying to imitate the sound of a grand piano - They will always just be an imitation of the real thing.

'Nuff said.

[Bob]

It was Mazeppa or Feux Fellets (sp?).  One of those had a part that sounded like it was stuck/repeating over and over.

That must have been a massive amount of work.  Maybe the piece just need some more tweaking/interpreting. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes this is right there are so awful mistakes that it it must be real.

So I was right Liszt I is human.

Are you talking about Bach I. ? this one is "real" but not mine and it is awfully stiff and clinical correct, but you don't seem to have any ear for that!

So again I was right Bach I was human (even though I only could listen to 15 seconds)

Sorry again, but stop with percentages of musical humanity, you gave the proof, that your ears couldnt recognize the difference between the real thing and the real playing on sampled instruments, just because you are trying to fight your own prejudice.

There are certainly parts of music which a computer could play and resemble a human! Loud sections in the liszt I mentioned to you clearly highlight this fact. But there are more sensitive and emotional parts which is just plays the notes over and has ZERO idea of the expression. That is not the computer fault, it is the programmers fault who does not hear it themselves!

I didn't think the challenge was to determine which piano was real or which one was digital, that is a stupid easy challenge. I was considering if the playing itself (REGARDLESS OF INSTRUMENT) was human or computer. There are a lot more processes you have to go through than just listening to the sound and go, yep that is computer, yep that is human. I really don't want to go into detail explaining it, you the musical phrasing of a computer is always artificial and how it connects parts together sounds like blocks, more so, the constant even notes and estimated volumes are sickening.

Before continuing railing about  not "award winnig" interpretations, just let me hear your last award winning interpretation, that proof your understanding and ability to judge.

I have been challenged by more people than yourself online to give recordings. Since music is my profession I pay no respect in giving away something I have worked all my life on for free just to feed unknown people online. Since I don't feel like it you won't get it, all you will hear from me is in the Audition room and I will not produce anything new on demand just to prove something to someone I do not know at all.

The missing mistakes in the Liszt is a very good point to reylize what is already explained on my startsite:
......
The only differents to traditional audiorecording is the simple fact, that not the Audiosignals were recorded but the behavior of the Keys I have pressed. That gives another Chance to wipe out playing mistakes,  of course I wiped them out as far they don't contribute to the musical intention.

So your system is measuring the speed and force in which the keys are being pressed down. Now, if you have to give a number to each and every note manually to tell it what strength it is to play at, then I am saying that this is a very long and inefficient process. Also, what is produced in the samples you presented us, does not highlight a masterful method of playing a piece. To someone who has little piano listening experience they will be fooled, but for us who have lived with piano music and listen to it every day (like myself 25+ years), we can tell what is digital and what is real. All of your recordings are not star quality, but that is not to say it will not entertain those that don't know much.

The suspected Computer wouldnt know anything about those difficulties each player has if he is trying to to realize thoses Etudes.

The computer does not know anything, it is the human programmer that will feel the difficulties. The human programmer for your samples obviously does not know how to make a machine play emotionally.

And it is not really a proof of your musical understanding if you didn't recognized the many fingertechnical caused metrical inegalities.

I am not trying to prove anything I merely put my opinion forward and it certainly is not your duty to talk about what you think I know.

What is "finger technical causing metrical inegalities"? I know English if your 2nd language and that is fine, I am not making fun of you I just don't understand you here.

But they belong so totally to the expected appearance of the List Etdes, that you would only recognized it when there are any technical absoltly unrealistic passages only a computer can play.

There is nothing Liszt ever wrote which is unplayable, at least everything I have tried I can play (and I have probably played a good 95% of his works, nb: played does not mean mastered so please nobody flame me). None of the recordings you presented us shows a piece of such great technical challenge that no human could play it. I would not understand the point of this type of music, and certainly Liszt is actually VERY EASY compared to what you can find!

If you have another impression, name me the concrete part, and I will try to show other examples of traditional interpretations that even were more technically skilled than what you suspect only could be the wok of a computer.

What does technical skill mean to you? The ability to play the notes and maybe add the correct volume and note quality (legato, staccato, tenuto etc)? This will produce most of the time an ok sound, but those with piano experience really want to hear things very slightly off, not everything is perfectly together, volume movements are not always linear, the very subtle control of tempo which only can only efficiently be reproduced by human fingers (I have tried to recreate this with Midi as it was a big interest of mine during my computer science/electrical engineering years [to make samples of pieces I never heard before and/or no recording exists], it just takes too long and is not worth your time if you can actually play piano.)

But of course the Etude-recordings on my site are full of fingertechnical but musiocal important metric inegalities, that are important for the musical Idea of the Pieces to show how to cope with extreme technical challenges.

So of course I didn't wiped out what makes the charakcteristic of the real playing. thats why I found it extremly important to start from the real played data. Therfor the Etudes are long time practised befor, and sonsequently the recordings they are in no moment faster or technical any more perfect as good pianists could play.

But editing the played mididata after playing,  - thats the only thing what is new about my Liszt Etudes - gives more musically reasonable possibilities to outline what the played Interpretation already intended.  I hope you finally understand that I start from real playing as everyone does playing the piano. There is nothing artificial about the playing and as you can see, there are still more colourless, artificial and more clinical interpretations played on "real pianos" than many of the recodings I have on my site.

So what you are doing is what I suspected. You are taking human recordings and shaping them digitally. This really is not a new thing to do, and how you have shaped them makes them sound quite robotic and without expression in many places (I repeat, in some places it sounds right, but the majority is ineffective).

It wqill be a lifetime work and I hope I will get the chance to do this job since it is not that probable that any one else will do.

Playing the piano with your hands or playing the piano with a machine, it will be a life long work no mater what you do. However playing with your hands will produce more immediate results and you can play the same piece in many interesting ways, a computer recording however, or a digital sample whatever you want to call it, will always sound plain in its plain parts, and it will in fact destroy the inexperienced listeners ability to understand what a piece should actually sound like when played correctly and not just the notes with estimated velocities/volume/touch.

Practiced and played on real keys with real fingers or are finger still parts of a computer in your mind?!

If all your recordings are real fingers on real keys, then the real fingers must have been both on the piano and on the computer keyboard to program the sound decisions. Since you have not revealed to any of us how you produce your recordings then we will say things you don't like (because you have not explained yourself). Also if you told me that these recordings where 100% human playing on a piano I would tell you, please let me meet these people because they have the most artificially even fingers I have ever seen and a musicality of 101010010101010110100100101010010010100101010111.

You are not denying that your recordings are from a computer. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by that. I mean, that the playing is perhaps inputted into a program then played back through a digital piano or real piano (via disk klavier). This is fine to do, but you will only ever hear an ESTIMATED reproduction of what a human actually does. If now you say, but they are not computer they are all human, then I will say to you, these humans play very artificially and in a way which in my 25 years of piano experience I have never seen in a human.

[retrouvailles]

Please enlighten me as to the composer of this undiscovered pianocycle.

It is probably by Felix Draeseke, for, according to his website, this is the same composer he wrote his thesis on. I translated his website from German to English and looked at his credentials.

[Steffen Fahl]

Huh, quite a lot to answer...
Lets start with the easier things:
Hi retrouvailles
Sorry that I didn't translate my musical biography yet, I understand more and more that I perhaps better should do as soon I will find a moment for.
But no, meanwhile Draeseke is analso interesting composer who wrote an oratorio surpassing the Wagner Ring in length, and contrapunctical richness. This composer was just the subject of my musical "Magister" (which is probably something like a bachelor).
No, my thesis was about Robert Kahn, but I think Thalbergmad has already found that.
 
Hi lostinidlewonder
You are really persistant with your "computerplaying" misconception of what I did.
Please don't bother me any longer with pretensions like "I would not have explained what I have done exactly", since one glance on my first site will already answer this question

which all were played first on a piano-like midikeyboard. The recorded Midi data was edited then detailed and diligently

(This is actually the answer for perfect_pitch to, who likewise should read, before asking, what is said nearly a dozen times in this thread right now)

there for once again: The Bach, Haydn and Liszt pieces are practised and played with real fingers on real 88keys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That means again it is me playing the Liszt, Haydn or Bach and me who practiced and played the music live with real fingers in the real keys of a real 88-Key keyboard. And after that just doing some fine detailed correction of those mistakes that disturbes the overall musical intention. 
Just take Mazeppa or Feux follets which Rob thought were most likely to sound to regulary and try to let a metronome run beside and you will notice after a few seconds - where ever in the recording you will try - that the playing deviate constantly from any kind of mechanical beat you will test. No computer nor suspected "system" or just "101010010101010110100100101010010010100101010111 musicality" would shape you that, but the very finger that only know by daily practice of the pieces how this music only can be played trying to keep as much as possible the musical order the partition demands.
Yes of course the pieces are playable, but not in the way a computer would "execute" the partitions, since big jumps and chords needs even for the most perfect virtuous pianist still a bit more time than more narrow lying easier playable passages, so actually all human interprets show there little deviations from the metrical order, compensating, the lost time of the more difficult pasages with faster played easier passages. And this I believe is already what Liszt himself expected while composing thoses  Studies, since those Jumps in Mazeppa for instance are placed that way, that those "metrical inegalities" or should I better say "inequalities" still mark and support the metrical more important beats like the 1 or 1 and 3, while easier passages  are often found on metrical not so important beats like 2-3-4, or 2 and 4 thats why I believe the playing difficulties in Liszts pianostyle are already a necessary unneclectable part of the musical conception of thoses pieces.

OK as it comes to your ears: Yes, you were right with the liszt and the bach were (not mine) but "real" perfomances I found in the net. But You were musically wrong, not to mention the real awful but realistic deficiencies of sound and interpretation of both "real" recordings in nearly every aspect you pretend would make a musical interpretation more natural. So you have to admit that only those problems made it so easy to recognize.
As I told it before if you thought the question , if a computer or a human played, you were absolutly wrong, as I told you none of them was merely "played by a computer" at all!!!
I hope you get that now finaly!!!!'t
 by the way: the quotation where you asked which skills i mean is talking of the skills of pianists to play Piano music on a piano. 

how you have shaped them makes them sound quite robotic and without expression in many places

If it were so you wouldnt have had any difficulties to judge right, which Haydn was a "robotic" and which one a so called "Human" playing.
You absolutly overestimate what impact the midiediting of selected details has to the whole played performance. It is just to outline what the intentions already has been while playing, for instance to increase the velocity of single notes that belongs to a melodie in order achieve a more homogene  singing line, to adjust a articlation that  fell a bit apart of the intended Articlation and so on. Be sure, if you really would have heard a computer just play what Liszt has written in his score, you will  see how much of just marks of human   interpretation  dominate everysingle note of the Liszt studies on my site no computer ever could do for you.

Claiming award winnig interpretations and excusing yourself, that you can't provide any is just cheap!! If you can't provide, please be as modest in your judgement as it deserves for people who can't do it better by them self!!!

Hi perfect pitch
You ask for the fourletter wording you did?
here it is:

I only ask since that if you actually don't know sh*t about playing piano, then I feel your testimony to this stuff may seem a little prejudiced in the first place.

About the problems of pianos: If you think about the sound of the real pianorecording I have contributed from the Net  before, I can't really see what "pinnacle of perfection" that should be. the Bachpiano sounds dull and poor in colour nuances, the Liszt piano is obviuosly so downplayed, that Fortepassages even hurt more than sound anyway and lyrical colors  are no more available on a piano like that. And this is nothing unrelistic with Pianos that cant hold  their first tonal qualities like a stradivari or guanieri. And of course you know that. But everybody  who looses the critical sense for realitiy is obviously in danger to feel him self at the "pinnacle of perfection". We won't have that beautiful pianosound established up to now, if the constructors of keyboard instruments would have thought that way and had not struggled the whole history of Keyboardbuilding for improvements of their instruments with all technical means of their time and I am happy that they still go on like this.
best
Steffen

[perfect_pitch]

I'm sick of arguing with this idiot - It's 40 degrees Centigrade here in Australia, and I do NOT have the energy today to argue with him - Maybe tomorrow.

[Steffen Fahl]

idiot

Wow! that's after all a fiveletterword 
Quite friendly to spent one more letter in your attempts to discuss polite and substancial.
But obviously that already seemed to be quite exhausting for you, so try to recover and you will perhaps even manage to form words with six letters next time, its worth to try at least...
best
Steffen

[perfect_pitch]

OK as it comes to your ears: Yes, you were right with the liszt and the bach were (not mine) but "real" perfomances I found in the net. But You were musically wrong, not to mention the real awful but realistic deficiencies of sound and interpretation of both "real" recordings in nearly every aspect you pretend would make a musical interpretation more natural.

So you chose a bunch of shitty recordings - that's your fault. But considering that a proper recording in a great studio with proper equipment can present a magnificent sound - still of a greater sound quality than your digital sound-sampling.

Quite friendly to spent one more letter in your attempts to discuss polite and substancial.

No - we don't seem to be discussing - I (and many other people of this forum) seem to be talking through our opinions, only to have you bitchslap (hey - a nine-letter word... who would have guessed), degrade & ignore us all.

So, How about you take your highly-pretentious ego and stop trying to cram your idealistic thoughts about midi-sampling and sound-libraries down our throats. Considering you're preaching to a forum FULL of pianists... who you still haven't won over - I think it might be time for you to give it a rest.

[Steffen Fahl]

But considering that a proper recording in a great studio with proper equipment can present a magnificent sound - still of a greater sound quality than your digital sound-sampling.

For whom of this Forum "Full of pianists" is that '"Reality" ??!!
If this should have anything to do with musical reality than this would be what sounds to me the most "highly-pretentious" here.
The reality of "real" pianos is what you hear on the deficient recordings I've posted. Those are the normal kind of recordings you could hear in the audition rooms of the pianoforums all over this worldwideweb. And their Reality is that those pianos are not at all in any great studio, but just at home and no where else. And that presumably no one in this Forum might even dream of working ever with the tiniest bit of that kind of Equipment in that kind of great studios and with that kind of grandpianos those pianosamples were recorded with. Thats why talking about "real" pianos and arguing like that is obviously the only thing here what is just "highly-pretentious" Nonsens!

No - we don't seem to be discussing

Ok, thats true for you. So why don't you just leave that thread if you have neither the ability nor the interest to discuss more substancial like the others??
Why dont you just go in your "great studio with proper equipment that can present a magnificent sound " and 'ameliorate' the perfect_pitch and soundquality of your real Piano by studiying Petrushka and the complete Paganinivariations for several month  
that would be much more interesting to hear at all.
best
Steffen

[prongated]

I'm sick of arguing with this idiot - It's 40 degrees Centigrade here in Australia, and I do NOT have the energy today to argue with him - Maybe tomorrow.

Is it just me, or does this also remind you of Richard Kastle? Hmm...

So you chose a bunch of shitty recordings - that's your fault. But considering that a proper recording in a great studio with proper equipment can present a magnificent sound - still of a greater sound quality than your digital sound-sampling.

The reality of "real" pianos is what you hear on the deficient recordings I've posted.

You mean the ones that you posted to see if we can identify whether it's by humans or computers? In that case, the deficiency is quite simply with the performer and not the instruments. Both Liszt Wilde Jagd samples that I heard (1-minute worth each for me) are not good at all - for different reasons. The sound of the first one was way too dry with no resonance, and while the second one has a more pleasing resonance, I don't think this human knows how to breathe at all - although the first one is also guilty of that.

...look, if you really spent your time learning all those pieces you posted up in your website for the last 5 years, that's great - I don't think anyone can learn that much without dedication, which I really should applaud. But as it is (and I suppose I'm sorry to say this, as I did in my first post in this thread), at least the quality of the performances throughout are not good, so let alone this "award-winning" business...
(oh, it's the instrument that is supposed to be award-winning right? If it's really as good as you say, then it may be interesting to hear a good pianist using it...)

[Steffen Fahl]

(oh, it's the instrument that is supposed to be award-winning right? If it's really as good as you say, then it may be interesting to hear a good pianist using it...)

You're right, I never pretended to offer any award winning interpretation. What I want to share is just my recording which might be imperfect an worth of critics as each musical interpretation you'll find on the earth.
But - If it is that bad, let me hear any of those "pianists" who post here at least proof to play the things they critizise that outstanding better, that it really does convince and would be not just a matter of taste what kind interpretation you appreciate.

But as far others here rail my recordings expecting that they should be awardwinnig, before they even dare to judge open minded for its certain strength and weakness, than I really ask you if anyone of those railing guys are et least able to mesure up with some of the recordings on my site before pretending that outstanding ability of the most general musical judgement without any outstanding ability to interpret the concete music themself any better.

So feel free to mesure up in sound and interpretation with your recodings or become more modest in your judgement. I at least know the text of the pieces I have played and why i did what.

But of course I am interested in musical substancial criticisme that doesn't stick in proofless pretentions of "not good" "good" "greater" and so on. If anyone has the imagination something breathes or does not, name the piece, name the passage and let me hear the certain recording that does better what you are looking for and I will be glad to have found an inspiring and interested pianocomunity.
best
Steffen

[jbmorel78]

Dear Steffen,

Why do you bother to defend this?  You've offered something very interesting, and I'm sure there are pianists on the forum who admire what you've done and will want to further explore it.

There may be several who "fail to see the point," even after repeated clarification, but perhaps it is better for you to save your energies for improving your product...

I, for one, think it is a very interesting idea.

Sincerely,

Jean-Baptiste Morel

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi jbmorel,
Thank you first for your kind reaction.
I admit I am german perhaps it is a bit true what Caesar said in his de bello gallico "dont struggle with suisse guys because they are well trained from their neighbours the germans which are always in struggle".

But: No, its not a matter of defense. I know that I am a human and as such worth to be criticised all day long. And since substancial critics makes you strong because it makes you relfect again on what you are doing and what else you might take more care about,  I am just struggeling to get more but just general sentiments or ideologic prejudices that fell instantly in parts when you dare to become a bit more concrete.

It would be great to find musically well educated and prezisly critical thinking guys here to comunicate so thats the essential aim of my "persistance".

best
Steffen

[prongated]

You're right, I never pretended to offer any award winning interpretation. What I want to share is just my recording which might be imperfect an worth of critics as each musical interpretation you'll find on the earth.

Just btw, recordings are usually posted in the audition forum. Next time ^^

But - If it is that bad, let me hear any of those "pianists" who post here at least proof to play the things they critizise that outstanding better, that it really does convince and would be not just a matter of taste what kind interpretation you appreciate.

You know, there were friendly "duels: happening until a few years ago where 2 or more members post recordings of the same piece and the rest gets to vote and share their opinion...just saying ^^

So feel free to mesure up in sound and interpretation with your recodings or become more modest in your judgement. I at least know the text of the pieces I have played and why i did what.

I hate to sound snobbish, but I'd really like to say that although I haven't learned the Wilde Jagd thoroughly, I have read the score, sight-read through it a few times and know it aurally well. Same goes with the rest of the Transcendental Etudes as well. Furthermore, I consider myself knowledgeable in this style of music that I am confident of giving some good criticism where necessary. Which also means I generally know when to shut up when there is something I really have no clue at all about the music.

So in the following instance...

If anyone has the imagination something breathes or does not, name the piece, name the passage and let me hear the certain recording that does better what you are looking for and I will be glad to have found an inspiring and interested pianocomunity.

...so you want the recordings to be analysed as though they are from a normal recital/recording? Fair go. Take the following for what it's worth.

Thinking of the second recording in particular, the rests between the phrases need to be more natural and yet still sounds precise. The metronome may say you (or the performer) execute the rests correctly, but the ears say the rests are too short. This gives that breathless impression and almost robot-like, since it's almost exactly always like that throughout the opening page (btw there can be more creativity here - there can be more variety with the rests as the harmonic progression dictates. For example, if you wait even slightly more breath/time before it goes to Db major, that harmonic shift will be even more exciting).

Anyway, the rests sound shorter because of the resonance of the piano - the sound does not die at the exact moment you lift your fingers off the keys. Mind you, this is a mistake that human performers also commit. The rests have to be slightly longer, but the overall impression still needs to be rhythmical and precise. But there is no precise mathematics to this - it needs to be guided by the ear.

I don't know if you get it from my last post, but anyway again, I should commend you for learning all those repertoire - takes dedication to do so, and that is something I appreciate very much.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi prongated,
Sorry I may have exaggerated a bit. Of course I dont mean no one who didnt play the same has reason to criticise. I just intended to remind those who seem to be a bit to fast and superficial in their judgement who they are and what they are talking about. And I understand that "friendly" duels does'nt mean so much when it comes to judge the inner coherence of an individual interpretation.

Of course I am very pleased and happy about your way of criticising. Yes I know that this is no Audition-room. I thought my situation was a bit different after working almost seven Years to carry out thoses grand projects, which was kind of refreshing fundamentally my pianostudies after I had finished all other degrees and adapting now my earlier musical knowledge to the latest technical development in music production.

Thats why I thought that my thread it is not just an exposition of one or another piece I am just working on. But a whole project, I kept back for so long time. So it is right and necessary to discuss all possible misconception like that all were just the product of an automatic and robotic playing computersystem, or that I am a hidden agent who intends to sell any certain product, with a kind of hidden and faked advertisment. Of course it is necessary to discuss and rectify those missconceptions. This all seem to me made the exposition of my whole new Musicpage not that apropriate for a single piece discussing audition room.

I dont want the recorded music discussed as anything else but music. No Recital no more or less huiman or real  or whatsoever.
Music, not more not less!

I dont care if I listen something while a Recital, while listening an rehearsal, a recording, or any other circumstance or medium you may mention since I am personally interested in the musical ideas comunicated and not at all in any circus of finger-slickness.

Sorry, but for me counts what you hear and in so far, I still don't understand what is precisely meant when someone rails the whole project "mathematic", "robotic" or the "final testament of digitalized music" or likewise formulations. (By thew way everything you hear today is digitalized in one or another way!? Even each single word anyone writes in this and all other threads of this Forum.

Lets com to your remarks:
I first had some problems to learn, which certain piece you are talking about. It would have been easier for me if you have named it a bit more clearly than just "the second recording". In regard to my whole Page that can still be quite a lot different stuff. But since what you said seems to fit,  I just asume, you are talking about the second Etude Transzendentale.  Molto vivace in A-Minor. Meanwhile its also for this Study very chracteritic what I said before about the whole Liszt studies-recordings , that you hardly would find any such note seqeunce in this recording, which is not characterized by certain changes and inequalities of the tempo, due to the playabilities of the pianistic invention, or due to the phrasing and harmonic progression of the composition. So I am simply quite astonished in which bar you could find any simply mathemathical correct rest, since there are is definitly no one due to the fact, that the prominent rests are mostly combined with larger Jumps which no one could and would ever play "mathemathical" correct. And my fingers didn't made there any exception in this regard.

But yes it is true this short molto vivace is  really played breathless. But this was definitly not the result of any robotic automatization, but actually my understanding of the piece. You know that Liszt was quite a young man when he conceived and notated the first time the main Ideas of those Etudes Transzendentale. He was just in the age trying to fetch the stars, since nothing seems far enough not to reach it. I ever thougt the ET's as one of the most impetous hasty composition Liszt has ever wrote.
Therefor the hasty Breathlessness is indeed is intended in this recording. But this is far from any automatisme or how you put it "prezise mathematics". If you  meanwhile have any passage in mind you think being mathemathically precise, try to listen that passage more concious and you will find that the tempo is moving in this interpretation presumably more than in many wellknown traditional interpretaions of this piece.  Anythig just precise will be impossible to find in this interpretation moreover a decision of my personal musical understanding of the piece. Thus -  far from asking any friendly duell, - let me ask if you are thinking on any certain interpretation, that invest more "breath" for this certain "molto vivace"? I would be curious to learn about.
best
Steffen
 

[perfect_pitch]

For whom of this Forum "Full of pianists" is that '"Reality" ??!!

Anyone who's ambitious enough to take piano seriously in the hopes of making their mark in the pianistic world. Concert Halls and Auditoriums are usually equipped with recording equipment capable of capturing the sound of the piano perfectly. I don't see how that's a problem.

Ok, thats true for you. So why don't you just leave that thread if you have neither the ability nor the interest to discuss more substancial like the others??

Hey, I have the ability to discuss most things - but since I predict this thread will die in a ditch somewhere because of your consistent rantings and your pretentious ego flooding this thread... since I'm not the only person who sees how pointless this thread is.

Why dont you just go in your "great studio with proper equipment that can present a magnificent sound " and 'ameliorate' the perfect_pitch and soundquality of your real Piano by studiying Petrushka and the complete Paganinivariations for several month  
that would be much more interesting to hear at all.

In fact - I plan to do JUST that in September on either a Yamaha or Steinway Grand Piano... Of course, I could rather do what you do and play it on a keyboard and use your Sound Library and Midi-sampling- but then it would sound like sh*t!    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and 'ameliorate'

Wow - someone got a Thesaurus for Xmas... now see if you can brush up on your poor english skills!!!

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi imperfect_pitch

To get serious about You:
before accusing any one to "rant" etc, compare yours with nearly all other post here in this thread and show me just one single post, where any one told so less related to the discussed theme and has lost so extremly the countenance as you did in nearly every post you wrote here?

Before practicing ambitious romantic piano literature it seems obviously to be necessary for you to practise welltempered behaviour.

It is never to late, give it a try...

best
Steffen

[ronde_des_sylphes]

But considering that a proper recording in a great studio with proper equipment can present a magnificent sound - still of a greater sound quality than your digital sound-sampling.

For whom of this Forum "Full of pianists" is that '"Reality" ??!!
If this should have anything to do with musical reality than this would be what sounds to me the most "highly-pretentious" here.
The reality of "real" pianos is what you hear on the deficient recordings I've posted. Those are the normal kind of recordings you could hear in the audition rooms of the pianoforums all over this worldwideweb. And their Reality is that those pianos are not at all in any great studio, but just at home and no where else. And that

presumably no one in this Forum might even dream of working ever with the tiniest bit of that kind of Equipment in that kind of great studios and with that kind of grandpianos those pianosamples were recorded with.

Thats why talking about "real" pianos and arguing like that is obviously the only thing here what is just "highly-pretentious" Nonsens!

You are the one who is talking nonsense here.

I'm sure if you look around the audition room here, you will find recordings which are on a very high level: technically, musically and sonically. Some very fine musicians post here, and it is a documented fact that at least two of the members have considerable experience in production.

You're right, I never pretended to offer any award winning interpretation. What I want to share is just my recording which might be imperfect an worth of critics as each musical interpretation you'll find on the earth.
But - If it is that bad, let me hear any of those "pianists" who post here at least proof to play the things they critizise that outstanding better, that it really does convince and would be not just a matter of taste what kind interpretation you appreciate.

But as far others here rail my recordings expecting that they should be awardwinnig, before they even dare to judge open minded for its certain strength and weakness, than I really ask you if anyone of those railing guys are et least able to mesure up with some of the recordings on my site before pretending that outstanding ability of the most general musical judgement without any outstanding ability to interpret the concete music themself any better.

So feel free to mesure up in sound and interpretation with your recodings or become more modest in your judgement. I at least know the text of the pieces I have played and why i did what.

Frankly, I'm sure some of us can make recordings which will stand comparison with yours.

[prongated]

I first had some problems to learn, which certain piece you are talking about. It would have been easier for me if you have named it a bit more clearly than just "the second recording". In regard to my whole Page that can still be quite a lot different stuff. But since what you said seems to fit,  I just asume, you are talking about the second Etude Transzendentale.  Molto vivace in A-Minor.

Oh, I'm actually talking about the ones that you post to see if we can determine whether it's humans or computers playing the music - the Wilde Jagd, no. 8. The ones here.

3) Liszt
- Liszt Test I
- Liszt Test II

I suppose that will change your comments? I actually haven't read beyond when you said you are assuming it is no. 2, because I do think no. 2 should be almost breathless and unrelenting - contrary to what I said about no. 8.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi ronde_de_sylphe,
Oh, you got me wrong, I won't deny that anyone is able to play and also to give recitals. When we are talking about Instruments, it is just the reality, that presumable hardly anyone play and practice daily in the audition room where he might give a recital one or another time. So no piano will stand it unharmed, to be practiced with stuff like Petroushka, the Paganinivariations, or the Lisztstudies for several month and even the pianos in audition rooms are not that easy to keep sounding as they should or at least you would expect they will sound from your daily practicing experience. Horowitz would have had its reasons to bring his own instrument to each of his concerts. Thus in short the ideal sound you expect from a piano may be known from the popular classical recordings, but is rarely achieved by the most of the wooden pianos in the real world by quite realistic reasons. I cant see the Nonsens of this statement, or did I misunderstood you anyhow?

I definitly am looking for, and had expected and hoped that I will meet musicians of knowledge and experience in a forum like that and I know there are enough pianists that surpass me in many aspects. Thats not the point. But if it were so that some of them post here, I just cant imagine, that they would be those who didnt make any use of musical knowledge and kultivated behavior. I only ask those who obviuosly are fast in expressing general statements but cant proof nor argue anything they state, to remind what they are talking about. Those are definitly not the ones that mesure up with me in any aspect I am interested in.

Hi prongated,
Ok you meant wilde Jagd, but in fact the situation is not that different.
On one hand not a single bar of this recording is without a strong romantic rubato you cant apply on any classical or baroque piece with out loosing the musical entity of the whole piece. This is only possible in romantic literature, because of their much wider metric context. But it is still astonishing that you even didn't recognize the this rubato in every played musical figure.

 Perhaps look the passage when it turn to Eb-Major the whole music slows down towards the harmonic change and did mark the following important harmonic changes likewise with explicit rubatos. but I suppose you do think more at the first part which indeed is breathless and not at least because the title wild chase" explicitly demands it or how did you breath in a "wild chase". But it is not at all breathless by means of mathematical correctness, but moreover just the opposite by the metric inequalities that derive from the difficulties with the big jumps in the Environment of the rests I think you are talking about.

If you perhaps feel somthing like the chords seem to be faster than you would play them - well that may be, but you can practise that, at least in a chase everyone is striving for tempo likewise the interprete is trying more to reach the Limit than to reach metrical correctness. And this in fact is the reason of haste, that the listener more or lesse recognizese, the interpret tries everything to reach the goal of that musical chase and therefor play more inequal as he wood if just the corectness of a computer would be the mesure of the interpretation.
So I would be interested to learn more about what passage concrete makes you the impression of mere mathematical correctness which I can't hear anywhere in this interpretation.

By the way I never posted anything  to determine if a computer played anything, since it was already on the very first page of my site clearly stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt are played by me. It was just a matter of the pianosound.
So if you know the score, give me just some concret examples.
best
Steffen  

[perfect_pitch]

By the way I never posted anything  to determine if a computer played anything, since it was already on the very first page of my site clearly stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt are played by me.

REALLY??? WHERE???



There isn't a single sentence where you claim that you performed them. You talk about programming, but you don't even mention the word 'perform'... and there's a huge difference between perform and program.

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!!!

[prongated]

REALLY??? WHERE???
...
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!!!

...hahaha, dude, point taken, but...chill...

Hi prongated,
On one hand not a single bar of this recording is without a strong romantic rubato you cant apply on any classical or baroque piece with out loosing the musical entity of the whole piece. This is only possible in romantic literature, because of their much wider metric context. But it is still astonishing that you even didn't recognize the this rubato in every played musical figure.

Perhaps look the passage when it turn to Eb-Major the whole music slows down towards the harmonic change and did mark the following important harmonic changes likewise with explicit rubatos. but I suppose you do think more at the first part which indeed is breathless and not at least because the title wild chase" explicitly demands it or how did you breath in a "wild chase". But it is not at all breathless by means of mathematical correctness, but moreover just the opposite by the metric inequalities that derive from the difficulties with the big jumps in the Environment of the rests I think you are talking about.  

OK, hang on, there's a lot of jumbled-up information right there...and I didn't get up to the Eb major section the first time I listened to it, so I listened to the second one a little bit more now, and that's the basis of what I'm saying here. (come to think of it, essentially it seems as though both are the same performance, except you put in more reverb and/or pedalling in the second one...?)

Anyway, no, for sure you need breaths that are logical in any music when there are rests written in. Yours are too short between phrases (e.g. between bars 2 and 3...I think. I don't have the score handy with me right now). I stand by what I said in the first post - the metronome says you are correct, but the ears say you are wrong. The result is it sounded rushed all the time. Point taken about creating a chase, but the most effective way to do it is actually to create a very rhythmic impression. There is no place to rush like that in music, except in amateur performances.

That little slow down to get towards the Eb major is I suppose called for and almost necessary, yes. But hey, you know, even when you put in all those tiny rubatos in that opening page, it doesn't change the impression the sound is computer-generated. The problem, I find, is with the tone and articulation. The articulation of the octaves and the chords are exactly the same within each phrase. A good pianist/musician will vary his/her touch subtly to adjust to, and to reflect, changes in harmonic shifts. So take into consideration the moment when the harmony temporarily shifts to Db major, before afterwards going to the dominant (G major).

As regards tone, this is especially disturbing when the Eb major theme comes. Basically, the rendition is very unmusical. No sensitivity to what is going on in the music whatsoever. No change in sound balance. No tone colour change whatsoever when it surprisingly goes into G major and shifts back to Eb major via the dominant (Bb major) - heck, not even the pedal! The sound could've blended very nicely for a moment there!

It was just a matter of the pianosound.

You know, having taken a quick course with a piano technician, I can see at least one problem that is yet to be addressed by digital piano makers (and anything else that is digitally produced/sampled): the double escapement action. It goes beyond just making notes repeat easier - it also gives pianists a way to vary articulation. You can strike the notes very quickly without going beyond where the "bumps" are to create a very smooth, legato sound. Or you can strike the notes to the bottom of the key without creating a lot of friction between the "roller" (or the "knuckle") and the hammer shank, which will give you a rich, resonant sound. Or, you can strike the notes to the bottom of the key in a very articulate manner so that the friction does occur, in which case you will get a very clear and articulate sound from the piano.

Pianists with fantastic sound utilise this action, and more, to create an utterly stunning performance. Reflecting on my comments, I see that I wrote them because the recordings you posted expose the (current) failings of sampling technology in that respect - there is almost no variation in articulation and tone (although for tone, you can play around with it more because you can add reverb and pedal. Even so, the resonance is not the same as an actual piano). As regards articulation and tone, I actually find them sounding almost as bad as the old MIDIs.

By the way I never posted anything  to determine if a computer played anything, since it was already on the very first page of my site clearly stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt are played by me.

Uh, yes you did. Right here, where I found the Wilde Jagd samples.

OK,
Enough idiology so far, lets become concrete and play:  which one is
- "the one and only real perfect imperfect and soulful" and which
- the alledged "help us god: awfully liveless computerized, colourless medium grade synthezised" sampled instrument?

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi perfect_pitch,

I am glad to read a post that looks nearly polite compared to your former postings.
I think you had to read a bit closer. In fact no where in the text you correctly copied is ever stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt  were programmed.
- The word "program" appeares related to the Metal-Version of the Paganini-Capriccio,
- The word "programmed" related to the Orchestrapieces.
Meanwhile in respect to the Bach, Haydn and Liszt recordings it is explicitly stated that they were:


I hope to "play" the piano is even in Australia far from being anyhow synonym with "to programm" a computer... Sorry but thats the plain text. Better read more carefully before trying to make "a point" like that next time.

Hi prongated,
If I really didn’t revealed it before. The first Liszt I posted in the little comparison is of course not mine but a recording I found in a Pianoforum-auditionroom. And the differences already in the awful mistakes and muscally disturbing inequalities are such large, that if you suspect both would be the same I don’t know where your ears are especially if you want to accuse my recording to much mathematical correctness.

Man if you want to play the Piano you shouöd be able to recognize at least such big differences
like those!!!

But more interesting is ust this alledged mathemathical correctness: When I read your description of the recordings I have got the impression, that you really dont know at all, how an "mathemathically" exact exection of that piece, that means a musically unshaped pure midifile of the score would sound like.  
To better proof what you are just suspect it would be, I post a midifile as you easiely find them in the web today:

Liszt wilde Jagd Midi
You will easyly hear how this mathemathical correct execution plays the more difficult jumps and Chord in an absolutly unplayable inhumane tempo, while the passages, better fitting to the hand, where a human interpret hurries to compensate his delay from chords and jumps are very much slower than in my and any other recording of the piece.

So if your metronome really mathematically fits with only one bar of my interpretation, you seem to have a very odd one.  You should obviously calibrate it with the midifile to come back in the world of mathemathical corectness!

Your Idea to change the Colour to give an intresting modulation another more interesting sound is in general quite a musical reasonable Idea. You should play Schubert and will find lots of great opportunities for sepecially this effect. But: however charming an effect might be, it has to fit in the total conception of his environment. And to get an interesting Contrast without loosing another interesting contrast affords, that not only before but also after you will find something contrating this effect. Otherwise you very easilliy get just “to much pedal” – if you know what I mean. When the Eb-Majortheme is repeated the lager Jumps and chords simply need to play the second time with pedal. This is musical quite understanding composed becase the Themes show in their beginning not that much variations so that the other sound colur of the Pedal makes the theme itself and not only a modulation more interesting the second time  And Liszt has not left the decision open, since you technically need pedal during the second time the theme appears. So your modulationeffect, will just sound like the pedal was to early not really anything contrasting anymore.

In regard to the dynamics you also didn’t listen carefully enough. The interesting aspect of this major theme is that it starts quite conventionally like Horn of ancient Chasingsocieties (can I say so?) (like those you already find in lots of classical compositions) but the second half of this conventionally starting theme modulates quite strange as you corectly observed. I reflected this each time with a lesser tempo and lower dynamic, you will easiely hear. The Midifile would fit in this respect much better to what you have said about my recording.

But even if the pieces seems in this moment to be a bit more relaxed as in the beginning it is still a chase, an there is not that much time for dreaming soundexperiments, even this majortheme pushes after a while with a consequent diminuation of the harmonic rythme and motivic substance the chase futher. Still that is really not the right place to become very “smooth”. But ofcourse I am interested to learn about those “Pianists with a fantastic sound” that do coulor this part that more exessivly you seem to prefer it. Which recording are you thinking about?


To become more general as it still seems as If you only try to proof sampled spouns being deficient. If they really would have less variety, why than was the Haydn where the variety of the pianosound is the most important, the most difficlt to determine Music, why did you recognized the “real” piano of the Bach example not by his colourfullness but his stiff soulless typical mediocre interpretation and its nearly totally invariant sound and tempo?


Meanwhile I apreciate your by far most serious argumentation, I still feel, you are more looking for arguments to defend than that you are looking to what is realy about the music you can hear.

The impression you still discuss more your emotional penchant but the real facts become more visable, when it comes to your quotations of my posts. Please better read before arguing without reason: The fundamental Sentence of my Question  you have quoted is about the “which one is the …instrument” which you can explicitly read directly at the end of the question while no where is anything asked or said about a who plays. (Beside the fact that the Question itself was a kind of game this thread should  play.)


So listen (and read) perhaps a bit more carefully and I will be quite interested, how you could proof your supicions to becom convincing criticism.  
Best
Steffen

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi ronde_de_sylphe,
Oh, you got me wrong, I won't deny that anyone is able to play and also to give recitals. When we are talking about Instruments, it is just the reality, that presumable hardly anyone play and practice daily in the audition room where he might give a recital one or another time. So no piano will stand it unharmed, to be practiced with stuff like Petroushka, the Paganinivariations, or the Lisztstudies for several month and even the pianos in audition rooms are not that easy to keep sounding as they should or at least you would expect they will sound from your daily practicing experience. Horowitz would have had its reasons to bring his own instrument to each of his concerts. Thus in short the ideal sound you expect from a piano may be known from the popular classical recordings, but is rarely achieved by the most of the wooden pianos in the real world by quite realistic reasons. I cant see the Nonsens of this statement, or did I misunderstood you anyhow?

The point is not what happens to the sound on a practice piano. If I'm going to make a serious recording, I'll do it on a proper grand piano, tuned to my standards beforehand, and it will be recorded with proper equipment. I'll take the sound I can get from a grand piano over the sound on your recordings, sorry.

[prongated]

If I really didn’t revealed it before. The first Liszt I posted in the little comparison is of course not mine but a recording I found in a Pianoforum-auditionroom.

I see. It's just a wild guess in my part. I paid very little attention to both samples at first, and even then, only the first minute or so of each.

But more interesting is ust this alledged mathemathical correctness: When I read your description of the recordings I have got the impression, that you really dont know at all, how an "mathemathically" exact exection of that piece, that means a musically unshaped pure midifile of the score would sound like. 
To better proof what you are just suspect it would be, I post a midifile as you easiely find them in the web today:

Liszt wilde Jagd Midi
You will easyly hear how this mathemathical correct execution plays the more difficult jumps and Chord in an absolutly unplayable inhumane tempo, while the passages, better fitting to the hand, where a human interpret hurries to compensate his delay from chords and jumps are very much slower than in my and any other recording of the piece.

So if your metronome really mathematically fits with only one bar of my interpretation, you seem to have a very odd one.  You should obviously calibrate it with the midifile to come back in the world of mathemathical corectness!

I think you're applying my comment out of proportion here. My comment is extremely specific to the rest that links bars 2 and 3 together. I'm not at all talking about the leaps you were talking about.

Your Idea to change the Colour to give an intresting modulation another more interesting sound is in general quite a musical reasonable Idea. You should play Schubert and will find lots of great opportunities for sepecially this effect. But: however charming an effect might be, it has to fit in the total conception of his environment. And to get an interesting Contrast without loosing another interesting contrast affords, that not only before but also after you will find something contrating this effect. Otherwise you very easilliy get just “to much pedal” – if you know what I mean. When the Eb-Majortheme is repeated the lager Jumps and chords simply need to play the second time with pedal. This is musical quite understanding composed becase the Themes show in their beginning not that much variations so that the other sound colur of the Pedal makes the theme itself and not only a modulation more interesting the second time  And Liszt has not left the decision open, since you technically need pedal during the second time the theme appears. So your modulationeffect, will just sound like the pedal was to early not really anything contrasting anymore.

Too much pedal indeed, if the pianist is incompetent. Pedal in said place is simply a tool to vary tone colour. If the pianist is competent, s/he can alter the tone via other means too. The fact remains that the theme is played in a very unmusical, uncreative manner. Your thought process, while plausible, is too limited in imagination. When the theme is repeated shortly after, it is in a higher register, which brings up more possibilities for the creative musicians to explore different sounds yet again. And trust me, the acoustic piano is capable of so much.

In regard to the dynamics you also didn’t listen carefully enough. The interesting aspect of this major theme is that it starts quite conventionally like Horn of ancient Chasingsocieties (can I say so?) (like those you already find in lots of classical compositions) but the second half of this conventionally starting theme modulates quite strange as you corectly observed. I reflected this each time with a lesser tempo and lower dynamic, you will easiely hear. The Midifile would fit in this respect much better to what you have said about my recording.

Maybe, maybe not...I don't think I'm about to listen to it again in any case.

But even if the pieces seems in this moment to be a bit more relaxed as in the beginning it is still a chase, an there is not that much time for dreaming soundexperiments, even this majortheme pushes after a while with a consequent diminuation of the harmonic rythme and motivic substance the chase futher. Still that is really not the right place to become very “smooth”. But ofcourse I am interested to learn about those “Pianists with a fantastic sound” that do coulor this part that more exessivly you seem to prefer it. Which recording are you thinking about?

...do you seriously think that a typical hunt consists only of chases for hours non-stop? There are exciting, chasing moments. There are also the suspenseful moment when you are about to discover the prey. There are victorious moments. There are perhaps mournful moments when one does not get what s/he wants. There are moments when you explore the area to begin with. All of this falls under "the hunt".

So, use the imagination. For sure you don't want to start becoming indulgent with the sound and putting sloppy rubatos all over the place, but I think this is the time to create some interesting musical effects as afforded by tone colour - it's a good time to relax a little, taking in the views of the hunting scenery if you like.

As regards recordings, I actually don't have any favourite. I have heard Arrau, Berezovsky...but I don't seem to remember any details at all as to how they do it. I mainly remember from sight-reading how I would approach it.

To become more general as it still seems as If you only try to proof sampled spouns being deficient. If they really would have less variety, why than was the Haydn where the variety of the pianosound is the most important, the most difficlt to determine Music, why did you recognized the “real” piano of the Bach example not by his colourfullness but his stiff soulless typical mediocre interpretation and its nearly totally invariant sound and tempo?

Sorry, I don't understand at all what you're trying to say about the music of Haydn and Bach, and piano sound here. Can you rephrase it?

The impression you still discuss more your emotional penchant but the real facts become more visable, when it comes to your quotations of my posts. Please better read before arguing without reason: The fundamental Sentence of my Question  you have quoted is about the “which one is the …instrument” which you can explicitly read directly at the end of the question while no where is anything asked or said about a who plays. (Beside the fact that the Question itself was a kind of game this thread should  play.

...huh??? Whatever. You typed what you typed, whether it's a game or not. No kidding. It's not very important to the main argument anyway.

[lostinidlewonder]

Hi lostinidlewonder
You are really persistant with your "computerplaying" misconception of what I did. there for once again: The Bach, Haydn and Liszt pieces are practised and played with real fingers on real 88keys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forget a moment about your definition of what it means to play on a REAL piano for a moment. Instead of that why don't you take a step back and tell us, who is actually playing the music you are digitally touching up? If you are saying you are not touching it up at all and it is all 100% human playing no computer at all, I would have to say, what is the point of doing that? I ask what is the point because obviously you must think that it is an improvement over professional real piano real musician real air/vibration recordings. If you think it is an improvement you have yet to show any of us the light.

That means again it is me playing the Liszt, Haydn or Bach and me who practiced and played the music live with real fingers in the real keys of a real 88-Key keyboard. And after that just doing some fine detailed correction of those mistakes that disturbes the overall musical intention.  

What is SOME corrections? One note here and there? Mass strings of notes? Are you artificially suppressing sounds or encouraging them? To me you have chipped and chiseled away at the music so much so that the playing has lost much of its human expression. Maybe your recordings are not completely computer but they certainly resemble a cyborg then and also recorded in the grounds of digital sampled pianist, you cannot expect to produce a sound that resembles a human (or even an improvement of human playing which I am sure is your aim).

Just take Mazeppa or Feux follets which Rob thought were most likely to sound to regulary and try to let a metronome run beside and you will notice after a few seconds - where ever in the recording you will try - that the playing deviate constantly from any kind of mechanical beat you will test.

You cannot tell me that there is a small number of "mechanical beats" when it comes to computerized recordings. If you do then you haven't listened to many MIDI's in your lifetime. They can be as various as the human programmer tells it. The problem is however, you have to work on such microscopic scales (usually notes by notes) to tell the computer what to do, you basically spoon feed it the entire way through. Some MIDI programmers are not very musical themselves, so they have little idea how to make the piece sound right with tempo alterations, but those who are perhaps even musicians themselves, can include these tempo alterations and make the music flow a lot more proper as a human should play. Even though you may get the tempo right and dynamics, the end result is always poorer than playing on a real piano since the reproduced sound is synthesized.

Yes of course the pieces are playable, but not in the way a computer would "execute" the partitions, since big jumps and chords needs even for the most perfect virtuous pianist still a bit more time than more narrow lying easier playable passages, so actually all human interprets show there little deviations from the metrical order, compensating, the lost time of the more difficult pasages with faster played easier passages.

So very incorrect. The composers themselves would have had a concept of what the sound of their compositions sound like because they played it with their own real hands. So you are here saying that even the composer themselves never realized what their own music should sound like because humans always cannot play the jumps without a loss of time and all composers should have a computer play the pieces for them so they can hear what it should sound like without these human deviations you talk about. If I am wrong here please tell me what you mean then.

And this I believe is already what Liszt himself expected while composing thoses  Studies, since those Jumps in Mazeppa for instance are placed that way, that those "metrical inegalities" or should I better say "inequalities" still mark and support the metrical more important beats like the 1 or 1 and 3, while easier passages  are often found on metrical not so important beats like 2-3-4, or 2 and 4 thats why I believe the playing difficulties in Liszts pianostyle are already a necessary unneclectable part of the musical conception of thoses pieces.

The techniques to jump in Mazeppa is not a beginner skill that is for sure, but no serious pianist who has learned the technique will tell you that they can absolutely not play it with musical context because it is too difficult to produce! If you personally believe there are no humans that can play these difficulties in Liszt's music please tell us why professional recordings fail so much. Please tell me for example, why Claudio Arrau fails at playing the Transcendentale Etudes next to your digital retouches?

If all you are basing what constitutes a good recordings with the ability to jump to notes, or any other minor technical challenge,then you are going to produce music which sound simple all the same (basically a note quality and quantity reproduction). You will miss out on the "telling of a story" that all real pianists do when they play the piano for people. The digital recreations do not know of expression or musical context.

OK as it comes to your ears: Yes, you were right with the liszt and the bach were (not mine) but "real" perfomances I found in the net. But You were musically wrong, not to mention the real awful but realistic deficiencies of sound and interpretation of both "real" recordings in nearly every aspect you pretend would make a musical interpretation more natural. So you have to admit that only those problems made it so easy to recognize.

Your challenge was for us to tell you what was real and what was your digital touch ups. I really couldn't give a stuff providing a professional adjudication for each of the pieces, unless you wanna pay me I did however go into a little detail in how a computer recording sounds like and pointed out specific parts of the Liszt which where the hallmark of computerized renditions. If you wanted to produce a digital touch up which produced us with something new then you would have been able to make us not know which recording was human and which one was your digitally touched up. And you should be comparing your digital touch ups with the masters of piano, not some unknown recordings, that makes your challenge too easy!
 

As I told it before if you thought the question , if a computer or a human played, you were absolutly wrong, as I told you none of them was merely "played by a computer" at all!!!

You are putting up smoke and mirrors with this response. What do you mean by "merely"? It would be simplistic to just input notes into a program and then get the program to play them back to you, yes. But isn't it just as useless to get someone to play, record that through a MIDI for instance which will put all the notes into a program for you without having to individually click each note in, then go back and correct mistakes, perhaps even space out the notes more exact and evenly. In the end you will produce a computer reconstruction of the music.

If you are saying that your recordings where played by a human I would love to see a human play in the way that the Liszt II in your test plays. It is impossible for a human to play that way, and if you say that it was played by real human fingers on a real piano keyboard without massive digital changes, I will respectively say, I do not believe you one bit but would love for your to change my mind.

You absolutly overestimate what impact the midiediting of selected details has to the whole played performance. It is just to outline what the intentions already has been while playing, for instance to increase the velocity of single notes that belongs to a melodie in order achieve a more homogene  singing line, to adjust a articlation that  fell a bit apart of the intended Articlation and so on.

One touch up here and there fine, but it seems like you have taken a great amount of time touching them up since this is a project you have done for many years. If this was all played by humans, then the output of the recordings would be very fast (compared to writing the individual notes into a program) and the very minor touch ups would not take years of work. So just how much touching up you do in my mind must be quite a lot so much so that in your Liszt II recording you posted on pianostreet if that was once a human recording you have messed around with it so much so that it now resembles much more machine. Like DARTH VADER! Welcome to the dark side! mwhahahahahaha

Claiming award winnig interpretations and excusing yourself, that you can't provide any is just cheap!! If you can't provide, please be as modest in your judgement as it deserves for people who can't do it better by them self!!!

I didn't ever say anything about my own playing with regards to your recordings posted on pianostreet. You are misquoting me to prove something to yourself here. 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.

[perfect_pitch]

By the way I never posted anything  to determine if a computer played anything, since it was already on the very first page of my site clearly stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt are played by me.

WRONG!!!!!

Meanwhile in respect to the Bach, Haydn and Liszt recordings it is explicitly stated that they were:

Not ONCE did you actually say they were played by YOU. Your statement was they were played on a piano-like midikeyboard... You did not state that you were the one who recorded them. As far as we knew you could have pulled them off a web-site with a whole heap of midi files... and then used your sound-sampling to make the sound slightly better.

You need to learn how to read... or better yet, to understand what you're reading and what your saying.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi prongated
Sorry, prongated: but what "musical"  "competence" other than
"

wild guesses

",
have you proofed in this thread, to be such audacious to judge the real existing work of others so fiercly: 

if the pianist is incompetent.

the theme is played in a very unmusical uncreative manner.

I dont even dare to ask if you ever tried playing piano yourself, far from asking you for just a single example of your musical skills.
It is already enough to take a look at the way you argue in this thread about an interpretation, you obviously hardly have listened more than bar 2 and 3 -

I paid very little attention to both samples at first, and even then, only the first minute

Maybe, maybe not...I don't think I'm about to listen to it again in any case.

My comment is extremely specific to the rest that links bars 2 and 3 together.

- I mean thats a joke but in no way a fundament of serious discussion -
 nor obviously any nearer Imagination of what is real possible and reasonable in that piece:

but I don't seem to remember any details at all as to how they do it.

I mainly remember from sight-reading how I would approach it.

Even this must be learned if it comes to understand the inner structure of a certain composition. But obviously what ever comes after bar 2 and 3 or to be precise the rest inbetween seems to be for you a matter of daydreams in the endless realms of a dictionaire like fantasy and so called “imagination” of the mere lexical environment of the word "hunt" , without the least relation to the music the composer or the least musical aspect you are trying to talk about:

...do you seriously think that a typical hunt consists only of chases for hours non-stop? There are exciting, chasing moments. There are also the suspenseful moment when you are about to discover the prey. There are victorious moments. There are perhaps mournful moments when one does not get what s/he wants. There are moments when you explore the area to begin with. All of this falls under "the hunt".

So if you realy pretend all that silly fabulation contributes anything to the question how and why this could or schould be played show it, name it them in the piece, otherwise this is just sensless fabulation.

Real fantasy and imagination in music is to understand and find new possible, reasonable and convincing relations in a certain composition to give an interpretation of new understanding but not what you do here.

Sorry, I don't understand at all what you're trying to say about the music of Haydn and Bach, and piano sound here.

Yes at least this is very true and proofed enough. Your problem is not that you dont understand me, but you have to understand something about music. It is a good way to start playing an instrument, meanwhile it is still a long way to go. But than at least, if you talk about the things you have expirienced yourself, it will be much more resonable to post something about in a Pianoforum.

Hi ronde de sylphe,
I understood you quite well what is nothing else that the most here argue with pianos they rarely play, to keep them sounding good and call those pianos than real pianos, meanwhile in their own daily reality is true what everybody knows that even the best pianos looses their soundqualities. I dont deny that there are some pianos beautiful for a certain time but I just remind you that even the best Pianos in reality wont stay the best and become deficient from each day of usage. Therefore there are just quite few "real" pianos that match for a limited time those high pretentions of good sound in reality and the most part are constantly loosing their qualities. It is just a matter of fact. And not the only problem with those oldtimeinstruments.

But I am not a preacher and dont want to evangelize anyone. What ever way you find to play music, in my opinion is good as long you honestly try to make good music out of it. Thus it is great if you can record with a piano you like. That is really not my point...

Hi lostindlewonder
To start with the last statement

lostinidlewonder hat keine verfügbaren Videos.

translated: as “lostinidlewonder has no Videos at all available“
Sorry that’s still a  not enogh to smash anything. But go on dreaming, perhaps you can smash anyone with your comments one easily find in Youtbe.
About the Jumps. If will read my postings abot the interpretation for instance of “wilde jagd” you will see that it is you that is trying to reduce my understanding only only one certain detail, you even doesn’ seem to understand.Try to play the pieces an you will soon know what I am talking about. And if you don’t believe, that no musician will play the mathematical exact metrical order as it is notated in the score, listen to the midi I have posted and you will hear what is metrical exact but musically nonsens.
Without repeating to much what I have already stated a dozen times. My concept for the great Pianoprojects was, to practice the whole programm, and not before I feel ready for start to record all that practised stuff. As someonme else already mentioned. The whole WTC, All Haydn Sonatas, All Liszt Studies and All Vingt regards by O.Messiaen is a quite large programm to study and I praticed already three years before recording anything.Than I recorded each piece playing on a Yamaha CP-80 those Pieces until I get an at least akzeptable result for each single Piece. Since the substance of the Interpretation is ever meant to be the concrete playing with my fingers on 88-Keys, listening the results in the moment when I am playing.. For the Haydn sonatas that meant to record the Whole 54 sonatas in two versions Steinway and Waltherpüianoforte. The recorded mididata of the played Interpretation was then diligently and detailed editited to outline the musical understanding the certain interpretations was about. It is just ridicilous to think I had changed every note and destroyed so any musical Idea and so on. This is just a cheap Idea since you are trying to make “a point” or nonsens like that. Naturally if you have practiced pieces for years, you have developed not only the technical skills to play them (what you just deny befor you ever tried it like I didI) but more impotant a quite detailed musical imagination of the piece that leads you still when you are just editing the mididata. And yes to work detailed and diligently still needs some time to but not to destroy what I have done but to judge fine details when something is to much or not. And still it is quite a lot music others wold hardly practise all in the years I have spent to practise, play and edit. So there even was not that much time to exaggerate any editing. This is the whole story.The last two years I had not so much .time to spent since there are also a lot others things I had and have to do. So all in all that makes 7 Years not unrealistic but also not such a long time for the Whole project.
Ok And now load at least one single Youtubevideo up that I can see that you have at least tried it to mesure up with something otherwise stay being a pretander it fits quite well to judge without understanding as you do so it would be not that astonishing to me.,


Hi perfect_pitch,
You seem to be realy desperatly trying to make play a synonym of programming. But this is just your misconception, or have you ever played a midifile with a midikeyboard??
A midikeyboard is an Inputdevice not an Outputdevice so it can’t “play” a midifile, The only thing a midikeyboard does is to receive the signals which key is when pressed an with which velocity. Thus it can I can only be played by fingers. That is the simple difference to the old playerpianos in western saloon, but they were also not played with downloadable midifiles. Oh my god, you have lost the point accept it that would save you at least to try more nonsens like that. But perhaps you are right and I should ad a page for dummies to explain such technical difficult aspects seperatly.
Best Steffen
…so to be honest myself perhaps I really better do more productive things than the most people writing here do in this forum.
best
Steffen

[lostinidlewonder]

Hi lostindlewonder
To start with the last statement translated: as “lostinidlewonder has no Videos at all available“

Why are you looking for videos from me? I said there are plenty of real recordings from professional and amateur alike which are improvements over your own recordings (which you claim are superior). You are setting up your own game when you say Lostinidlewonder cannot say anything until he presents his own music for us to listen to. I doubt anyone here is on your side with your logic on that my friend.

About the Jumps. If will read my postings abot the interpretation for instance of “wilde jagd” you will see that it is you that is trying to reduce my understanding only only one certain detail, you even doesn’ seem to understand.Try to play the pieces an you will soon know what I am talking about. And if you don’t believe, that no musician will play the mathematical exact metrical order as it is notated in the score, listen to the midi I have posted and you will hear what is metrical exact but musically nonsens.

It is YOU that started talking about leaps and how your recordings do a more exact job of it than humans. You have TOTALLY ignored my statement about how composers create their music with human hands, thus they only know it in terms of human playing. You seem to have some DELUSION OF GRANDEUR with the work you are doing, you think it is the holy grail but really, you have only yourself convinced there

It is just ridicilous to think I had changed every note and destroyed so any musical Idea and so on. This is just a cheap Idea since you are trying to make “a point” or nonsens like that. Naturally if you have practiced pieces for years, you have developed not only the technical skills to play them (what you just deny befor you ever tried it like I didI) but more impotant a quite detailed musical imagination of the piece that leads you still when you are just editing the mididata.

You seem to chain off into all sorts of ideas and meanings in your own head. It is NOT RIDICULOUS that you changed the LISZT II recordings so much so that it sounds really stupid and crap in many places, you ask ANY professional pianist what they think and they will say the same. You may even ask people who avid are piano music listeners and they will also say the same. You have only just joined this website and hardly know the personalities on here and yet you happy say to me at least, that I know nothing and have no piano experience. What a joke and I laugh in your face. You are using the fact that I will not post any recordings of myself as a defense, which is illogical and simply avoiding the fact that MANY MANY MANY people have done REAL recordings which blows your computerized edited music out of the water.

And yes to work detailed and diligently still needs some time to but not to destroy what I have done but to judge fine details when something is to much or not.

My points where not small but very direct. The Liszt II moment I talked about is a real moment in the etude and your computer rendition missed the musical point completely. If you want to think that this part is a small detail and merely is used to pull you down, then you have some paranoid and insecure approach to your music. I am not here to pull you down, but at the same time I am not going to agree with you that what you produce is any improvement over human playing (unless you actually play very badly and the computer has made you play better, in that case well done, you must play at a very low level and I am impressed at your computer skills!)

And still it is quite a lot music others wold hardly practise all in the years I have spent to practise, play and edit. So there even was not that much time to exaggerate any editing. This is the whole story.The last two years I had not so much .time to spent since there are also a lot others things I had and have to do. So all in all that makes 7 Years not unrealistic but also not such a long time for the Whole project.

Maybe I should play your PROVE IT TO ME GAME here? Your recording of the Liszt II is not human at all, not 1 bit, so please prove it to me by posting a video of it or I wont believe you and everything you say means zero. See how stupid that game is? If you have studied the emotion and expression in the Liszt Etudes you would realize that your liszt II recording misses out on the expressive parts constantly. If you do not see that, I am very sorry for you. Please listen to Claudio Arrau on youtube, he will teach you a little bit about the musical way to play the etudes.

Ok And now load at least one single Youtubevideo up that I can see that you have at least tried it to mesure up with something otherwise stay being a pretander it fits quite well to judge without understanding as you do so it would be not that astonishing to me.,

I am satisfied that your recordings have been already defeated by what is out there. There is little point in beating you to a bloody mess further when it has already been done. Only foolish people will believe that your recordings are an improvement and a more proper example of the composers intentions.


In some way this debate is like the special olympics isn't it

[prongated]

Yes at least this is very true and proofed enough. Your problem is not that you dont understand me, but you have to understand something about music.

...I'm speechless...that's a cause for a good laugh. I don't understand you simply because your English is extremely poorly structured, especially when trying to write so much in so little time. Your understanding of English is not that much better either it seems.

Sure, I only listened without paying much attention at first. AT FIRST. I listened to the second excerpt more carefully. That wild guess? It's about how the first and the second are the same performance, with different effects applied. Nothing to do with any musical argument whatsoever. And that paragraph I said I did not completely understand? Seriously, I doubt anyone here can decipher it.

So if you realy pretend all that silly fabulation contributes anything to the question how and why this could or schould be played show it, name it them in the piece, otherwise this is just sensless fabulation.

...you execute this "silly, senseless fabulation" by doing what I wrote. The reasons are also explained. And hey, you know what, I'm done mucking around with a stubborn person like you here. You don't like my ideas, that's fine. You like working with the colourless, plasticky sampled sound, then go on.

Sorry, prongated: but what "musical"  "competence" other than
"",
have you proofed in this thread, to be such audacious to judge the real existing work of others so fiercly:   I dont even dare to ask if you ever tried playing piano yourself, far from asking you for just a single example of your musical skills.

...it's quite simple: I don't attempt to prove anything. I see spaces like this forum as mainly a way to exchange ideas and thoughts, and I think many others do too. And we judge the ideas and thoughts, not so much the poster. As such, I regard your attempt to insult my musical ability as a personal attack. If you want to start making ad-hominem attacks like that (and seriously, that's what you've been doing throughout this thread towards people who don't appreciate what they hear), then I have no further interest in carrying on. Personally, I prove my musical abilities where appropriate, and I can see that it will take our arguments nowhere. So like I said, I'm done here.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hasn't been there someone predicting this thread to die?
That is obviously not that easy
Hi  lostinidlewonder

You do quite often mistake me quite much, and if you would not, you must have seen, that the Things you claim are sometimes just the things I already said. Here is an examples:

The point I was talking about the example of the inequality of all musical reasonable recordings of the Liszt studies what means primarily the most existing  "real payed" pianointerpretations like you may hear on records, in Auditionrooms, at Youtbe and of course those on my site to.

They all share the fact, not being played “mathematically correct” at least in respect to the notated text in the score, as you can hear it in the “mathematically correct” midifile I ve posted above.

And what I said is exactly that those “incorrectness” are musically still quite reasonable and moreover they were used quite intelligent by Liszt, who knows best what a piano player will do, when he will try to realize what is written in the score.

So my point was there are so many musical important aspects in the Liszt studies directly depending from the way and possibilities to play the music with fingers, what a computer could not know by any means, since he definitly has no finger nor the expirience how they manage to play Liszts music.

Therefor I argued and this is definitly quite the same as you did, that a computer can’t play Music that apropriate than someone who knows how to play it with fingers.


And why did I argued like this?

Just because my recordings are not played by a computer at all as the most people like you here obsessivly think, but are real played and I just mentioned this point because you can find all those marks of human playing in my recordings aswell like the inequalities depending to the real playing of the score with fingers.

That does proof that my recordings are in many aspects determinated from facts only the self playing interpret knows and does which consequently proofs what I already stated on the very fist site of my HP that those are real played interpretations and nothing automaticly executed. So there is nothing of holy grail etc. what you accused, but just the proof: that’s nothing but human music as all human music is.

ask ANY professional pianist what they think and they will say the same. You may even ask people who avid are piano music listeners and they will also say the same.

Why don’t you just say what you think before pretending to know what others does?? Are you god, or did you just fear your arguments allone are not that convincing that you need ths support from imaginated majorities?


Your are again quite audacious when it comes to judge the musical expression at least, I fear you hardly know the Arrau playing of the Liszt-studies as detailed as I do otherwise you would have been much more cautious with your absolutly unproofed an overgeneral condemnations. But sorry I forgot, you are just a listener, who is not responsible If he don’t know even the thing he is talking about, because whatso ever since he regularyly comment Youtubevideos, than the name Youtube should be enough to justify any nonsens he thinks.


But I like it that you at least know the names of Arrau and Berezowsky, that’s a good starting point to gather some more knowledge for the subject we are discussing here.

bye bye prongated
have a nice time,
sorry I just mesured your musical competence only by what you are posting here and proofed that clearly with direct quotes of your own words.
 
Best
Steffen

[perfect_pitch]

Hi perfect_pitch,
You seem to be realy desperatly trying to make play a synonym of programming.

OH HELL NO... FIRST of all - I am not going to be lectured by a guy who can barely use the english language, yet alone string together a sentence without confusing the crap out of everyone else on the forum.

...with thousends of minutes...

difference between a "syntheziser" and "samplelibraries"

Spelling???

Perhaps you have to visit the mentioned website (what you didnt do yet) to know what you are talking about the adress of the site is...

Grammar???

...as you are ready to have for the "real" thing, which is never the "ideal" thing, if it is realy the real thing.

W T F???

I hope to "play" the piano is even in Australia far from being anyhow synonym with "to programm" a computer...

An even bigger W T F with spelling and grammar problems???

SECOND of all... I clearly know the difference between the definition of 'play' and 'program' and NOT ONCE have I confused the two.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is just your misconception, or have you ever played a midifile with a midikeyboard??
A midikeyboard is an Inputdevice not an Outputdevice so it can’t “play” a midifile, The only thing a midikeyboard does is to receive the signals which key is when pressed an with which velocity.

No - I prefer to play on a real Piano. And yet, with technology these days, there are plenty of keyboards in which you can do both - You can play something on your keyboard and have it transcribed using various software like Sibelius, Finale, GarageBand (to name a few) and then combine with different instruments and send the data back to the keyboard for it to play all the parts together.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...since it was already on the very first page of my site clearly stated, that Bach, Haydn and Liszt are played by me.

This...

nor this...

with thousends of minutes of mp3-recordings I produced in the last 5 Years with several high quality sample Libraries

...imply that you were the one playing them... It simply states that they were played - Lang Lang could have played them as far as we know (I wouldn't be surprised - sorry to any Lang Lang players out there), so you need to understand exactly what it is your saying, because I'm pretty sure Microsoft Word couldn't sort out your grammatical errors.

Which brings us back to the original point that you wanted to see

...wether they can meet the musical demands of reasonable classical interpretations.

I think considering that we've heard some of your examples, I believe I speak on behalf of almost everyone here (who can hear) when I say...

NO, they can't!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew - that was fun...    

And by the way...

After that I took month to musically adjust those Interpretations musically with the means of editing the mididata.

I'm going to head off now and practice my Stravinsky on my real piano... without using a computer to adjust the mididata or to adjust the musicality... You know - like a REAL PIANIST DOES!!!

[gep]

I am not going to be lectured by a guy who can barely use the english language

WHATEVER one thinks about the site at hand and the man behind it, please do not harass somebody who apparently is not a native speaker of English but who does try nonetheless to express himself in it. If you really are so upset because someone makes a few mistakes in the lingo, I'd suggest you find out what his language is and express yourself in that (assuming, of course, that your prowess in his language is better than his in yours).
Some examples I've heard of "real" Aussie-spake was pretty incomprehensible...

Courtesy, mate, courtesy.....

gep

[thalbergmad]

"Strewth Sheila, throw another one on the barbie and blow the froth of the few"

Thats the only Australian i know.

Thal

[perfect_pitch]

Hey... I wasn't insulting him because english isn't his primary language...

I was insulting him because he doesn't seem to understand what I'm typing, but continues to act like an egotistical prick and assumes he can correct us when he's wrong. He mis-understands everyone yet continues to insult them... So I shall stand my ground.

And although I don't know what his primary language is - if it's anything other than english, then I'm sure I'd suck at it... However my prowess in the english language seems to be of a higher level than his, so I think I have the right to criticise him for his poor english skills - since he seems to think he can correct us for ours.

And...

Some examples I've heard of "real" Aussie-spake was pretty incomprehensible...

I know - it's brutal isn't it??? I'm just glad I'm not an Aussie...  

...and blow the froth of the few"

I don't even know what the hell that means...?

[gep]

I'm just glad I'm not an Aussie... 

Do forgive, I must have gotten confused by your remark

It's 40 degrees Centigrade here in Australia

but then, a kitten from a kennel is not dog, if I may paraphrase. Not that you are either kitten or dog of course, just to state that while you may hail from Autralia you are not necessarily of it.

egotistical prick

Wouldn't a prick rather be egotesticle?

I shall stand my ground.

But not Aussie ground.

Sorry, I'm having a spot of fun here...

I've heard some bits from that website and must say, even when disregarding the rather MIDIocre sound, I'm still rather underwhelmed. The site seems to claim more than is actually given. Not that I expect someone, or anyone, to exceed, say, Feinberg in WTC, but here I must in all honesty say I smell a whiff of pretence that is not borne out. Sorry 'bout that, but so it seems to me...

all best,
gep

[perfect_pitch]

Do forgive, I must have gotten confused by your remark.

I'm Scottish - born in Scotland but living in Australia, but that doesn't necessarily make me Australian. You wouldn't call a french tourist in England an Englishman, or else you'd get the sh*t kicked out of you.

Wouldn't a prick rather be egotesticle?

Well there's more than one use of the word 'prick'... but that did make me laugh. You're an OK guy.

Courtesy, mate, courtesy.....

Maybe, but I think the one person who needs a bit more courtesy about this thread is Fahl5. Granted my responses may have sounded harsh, but I'm just sick of dickheads like him who trash the site with insults (and to be honest - he has jerked off (and I mean that in the figurative sense) a number of people here with his ramblings).

His original goal was to see if they stood up to the highest standards of professional recordings and within a very short time it was obvious to most here, that they didn't... The technology just doesn't stand against professional pianists and professional recordings so I'm just trying to make that clear to him. I mean as soon as you start using computers to edit recordings and midi data then you're taking the pianism out of the piano. 

It's been said before by others, so I'm just trying to get the point across to Fahl5. He asked for our opinion and he got it - the fact that his doesn't match with ours is something he's got to accept.

'Nuff said.

[gep]

You're an OK guy.

Hah! You should talk to some people who have experienced me!

[lostinidlewonder]

..You do quite often mistake me quite much, and if you would not, you must have seen, that the Things you claim are sometimes just the things I already said.

This is a hilarious sentence. If we break it down it says this:

You have a wrong idea about what I say quite a lot of the time, if you didn't (have a wrong idea about me), you will realize that the thing you say are sometimes the things I am already saying!

What kind of brain damaged obvious logic is this sentence!

The point I was talking about the example of the inequality of all musical reasonable recordings of the Liszt studies what means primarily the most existing  "real payed" pianointerpretations like you may hear on records, in Auditionrooms, at Youtbe and of course those on my site to.

You are making a storm out of a teacup" thinking that inequalities pose such a great problem to the product of the recording. You have not also identified clearly how these inequalities adversely effect the music. You are considering one single leaf on a tree and ignoring the forest. I assure you this small leaf of inequality is a microscopic problem if you want to even consider it a problem! You are the only one who says the inequalities adversely effect the music, you have not shown how this is so, and your digital reconstructions (which you say address the issue of inequality) do not improve the sound one iota!

They all share the fact, not being played “mathematically correct” at least in respect to the notated text in the score, as you can hear it in the “mathematically correct” midifile I ve posted above.

And what I said is exactly that those “incorrectness” are musically still quite reasonable and moreover they were used quite intelligent by Liszt, who knows best what a piano player will do, when he will try to realize what is written in the score.

Music shouldn't be played with exact mathematically precision, music IS NOT AN EXACT science. YOU are creating an imaginary issue of piano music, even going so far that Liszt intentionally used "incorrectness" in music intelligently!

So my point was there are so many musical important aspects in the Liszt studies directly depending from the way and possibilities to play the music with fingers, what a computer could not know by any means, since he definitly has no finger nor the expirience how they manage to play Liszts music.

NO one said a computer has fingers or KNOWS how to play a piano piece. That would be a stupid thing to consider so you are only arguing with yourself here. However your recordings are supposed to be more accurate rendition of the composers intention. However my friend, your very recordings fall into the sterile environment of computer expression. Yes, through your recordings I am sure you now realize that computers by no means know how to play music musically! You have created your own evidence there to learn from!

Therefor I argued and this is definitly quite the same as you did, that a computer can’t play Music that apropriate than someone who knows how to play it with fingers.

No one is arguing that computers can't play piano as good as a human, that is basic knowledge. We however are arguing that if you think your recordings are improvements (with the computer effects) you are going against your own very philosophy! You think humans can do a better job, but why then do you go ahead and translate all your recordings to the digital piano and computer control!???

Just because my recordings are not played by a computer at all as the most people like you here obsessivly think, but are real played and I just mentioned this point because you can find all those marks of human playing in my recordings aswell like the inequalities depending to the real playing of the score with fingers.

You are a liar and I won't believe you until you post video recordings of a human fingers playing those pieces exactly as you posted them here on pianostreet. You think us professional pianists are fooled that your computer is supposed to be human? You can throw your hands up and cry all day long, you still wont convince me , or anyone else with some musical knowledge.

Why don’t you just say what you think before pretending to know what others does?? Are you god, or did you just fear your arguments allone are not that convincing that you need ths support from imaginated majorities?

I am not God, but God has given me a mind and knowledge greater than most people in this world pertaining to the piano. Piano is my profession and I am merely giving my professional opinion on what you decided to discuss with us on pianostreet. If you do not like our opinions then perhaps maybe you should post your stuff in a less public forum?

You may dislike what we say, but that is irrelevant. We are discussing an issue, not the person personally. You have not revealed your stance very clearly, merely speaking in mad logical spirals which make little sense.

....I fear you hardly know the Arrau playing of the Liszt-studies as detailed as I do otherwise you would have been much more cautious with your absolutly unproofed an overgeneral condemnations.

This sentence you are simply an empty vessel making a lot of noise. I am sorry, you know nothing, or at least I should say, your recordings pay no attention to the musicality Arrau uses with the Liszt etudes.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi perfect_pitch
1)   Just some short responses to your youngest vivid postings
I am impressed by the detailed interest you show for my language, but sory, the language I’ll find in your postings is really nothing I ever would or could be forced to learn.
2)   You still show that there is no difference in your complete misunderstanding
-   You don’t know the difference between a “Keyboard” and a “midikeyboard”. You could’nt play any midifile on an pure inputdevice like a "midikeyboard" as you couldnt listen an opera "playing" it from an mp3file with a microphone.
3)   It’s at least a new Idea that you try to deny the simple fact, that my recordings are played by myself as stated, with the argument I did’nt wrote my name in the very sentence that all Bach, Haydn and Liszt were played on a midikeyboard. But in vain:
   In the copyrightsection you find beside my name this explicit statement

All mp3-recordings linked on this site are produced by myself.

I would not be able or allowed to say it like that if someone else would have played it.

You are really trying hard to get me your opinion. Meanwhile it is really hard to understand in your posting anything what seems to be worthy to be called an “opinion”, the only thing I could recognize there is the impression of someone without any countenance and behavior at all.
I personally cant imagine any charm from music played by guys like that.

You state that I would “insult” anybody or show anything like “rambling”

Given the fact that each statement must has a concrete proof and reason to be jusitfyable, go on show me any proof of unobjectiv statement without reason I done in this thread. And than compare it just with your postings and you will have enough reasons in yourself to come back on the ground.

Hi lostinidlewonder
If you would be a “professional pianists”, just give me any link to any of your recordings of the pieces you talk about, or perhaps at least anything you ever played otherwise be careful to call anyone a liar without proof and reason for that false accusation.

I have already showed my difficulties to find in your “wild guesses” any sign of “proffesional” opinion and I can and have proofed everything I stated here.

So finaly I posted in a pianoforum asking for reasonable founded opinions. And what ever the opinion might be the more founded it would be the more I’d be glad to learn it.

But as I already said: one single rest between bar two and three and the explicit statement, that you didn’t heard more of the interpretation nor remind anything concrete of any other interpretation is nothing you could found an opinion about an Interpretation of a 8-pages long pianistic Etude.

This is the only reason I criticise is the way you argue here. Show me the musicall knowledge you pretend to have and all is great but at least it should reach a bit farer than bar 2 and 3 in a piece.

Puh…
Fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

I am sorry you do not want to engage in a proper discussion with people of opposing opinions. If you wanted to be surrounded by people who think like you then you should really just talk to yourself. You are happy and joyful and even commend people if they agree with you. If they do not agree with you they are frauds and do not know anything.

If you do not agree with someones opinion you do not say what they say is stupid and ridiculous, you merely point out reasons for why you think the way you do. I gave a specific part in the Liszt II recording for instance, of which you completely ignored. The reason you ignored the examples I gave which highlighted the computerized voice of your recordings is because you cannot debate it. Instead you want to play a game of calling people whatever you want to call them.

No where in what I write to do talk about you personally, yet you happily tear me and other experienced pianists personally this is very obvious to us adults in this forum and for me at least, doesn't highlight very constructive attitude on your behalf (especially on a topic that you are personally interested in).


If you want to read about my knowledge of piano feel free to browse through the couple of thousand of posts I have on pianostreet on the topic. If you want to hear me play feel free to listen to the few recordings I have on pianostreet (https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=31501.0), otherwise come to Australia!

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi lostinidlewonder
This was a wonderful posting.
First let me appreciate the work you have done creating the pianostreet index. Really great job.

And it is intresting to hear the sorabji and the two quite modern improvisations which were the only midifiles you posted as your own recording the last years you hang around here.

Interesting especially since they actually show more than any of over 200 recordings on my site (even those which were expilicitly pure programmed music like the orchestra or ensemble pieces) the common problems with nearly unedited midifiles in respect of highly improbable exactness, often arbitrary dynamics, inflexibility of the metrum, phrasing without the least relation to their manual playability etc. if you like We can go in details with everything I just mentioned here. But I' dont do that without your accordance.

In fact: if ever you have anything to do with pianomusic, than it is doing just the very thing, you pretend you are able to criticise in my recordings.

But sorry again. It is just the other way around to, what you said about my postings. It is not me who fails to proof his opinion with a lot of concrete passages from the piece, which you even admit to have heard only a very short moment once.

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:
OK lets look whats about the statement:

the rests between the phrases need to be more natural

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

Just nothing, because bar two ends just in the middle of a chordpassage.
What a joke of musical knowledge! Not you or a own opinion is ridicolous, but to talk about things that doesnt exsist at all!!!!!
And what is the reason that you are talking about things that doesn’t exist at all, because you don’t play the piece, you don’t have even any certain knowledge about any recording of the piece and you are trying to understand a piece…

from sight-reading how I would approach it.

while youself admit:

I don't have the score handy with me right now

So don’t you real wonder why I just avoided to stultify you with not mentioning the real mistakes you did with your critics?

But since you asked for that’s it. And don’t think my disproof just relies on a silly fault in the barnumbers you mentioned, since for the bar changes at the end of the first phrase my recording is everything else but it is not at all unmusically exact only a “computerized” music like you sorabji would be.

But as you cant determine between an interpretation without mistakes and one with plenty of awful mistakes in your wild guesses, your “professional” knowledge also allows you neither to know anything about the score you alledgly approach only by sight-reading nor about the piece you admit not to have listened in my interpretation nor in any other one. Nor seem to have “recorded” at least anything you have played with your own fingers on real keys, or did I miss any of your recordings. If so let me know I’d be very interested to learn more about your musical skills if ever anything is proofable  like that.

Best
fahl5