vag.
r4eva may be 17
Thats hardly a positive point for you, firstly that's not difficult to get, secondly r4eva may be 17 but statistics say he's probably been there so you're unlikely to be ahead, and lastly its really not uncommon for women in general to be attracted to douchebags... which seems likely to be the case here.
Actually, he's 18 now. Our little boy has all growed up.More generally:
The level of conversation here is abysmal. Such potty talk.
Turned 18 last month. I have yet to buy a pack of cigarettes, lottery ticket, and ticket to a strip club. I'll get to it.Eventually...
What on earth is going on here? I was asked in rather sarcastic tones what my artistry got me, and I responded 'vag'. Of course, my caps-lock was off, and I meant to say VAG, in reference to the free tickets I got for the Vermeer exhibit at the Vancouver Art Gallery. What are you insinuating here??
Young people today. No get up and go.
Well I have the end of the world to worry about so...This petty stuff can come afterwards.
Are you sure that the "nobler beings" that replace the strippers will still be doing the job?
Noble strippers?
Also...Rachmaninoff has the worst rendition of his third piano concerto.It freaking SUCKS!!!GARBAGE!!!The lazy bastard didn't care enough to play the whole thing.Loser...
but the first one is sooooo goood! He was probably like..."dude, I'm too wasted and old. I don't need to memorize it because I am gonna die some day anyways, and my brain will be no more. So....f*** it." Then he went home and improvised and didn't write it down. Then he performed 100 secret pieces and didn't record them...
Me: Play me some Bach!!! BACH please!!!Teacher: what have I done...
Your teacher is a moron whose ignorant opinions you mindlessly regurgitate like the impressionable minion you are. I doubt he will ever compose anything as good as one of Rachmaninoff's juvenile works.
His good deed for the day, apparently.
I never would've thought that Rachmaninoff would get me in to begging for Bach...
I really don't know when he wrote what...I am not too ready to work on many of his pieces at this point. Maybe I will finish one by the end of the summer...fml
Dude the order of his preludes like don't make sense.
Oh come on you can play the Ondine, his preludes/etudes should be a walk in the park for you. Okay not a walk in the park, some of them are pretty nasty. Probably a medium jog in the park. Dude the order of his preludes like don't make sense.One day I was gonna do a rach étude and I looked at the title and it was like...
It's one thing to say that Rachmaninov wasn't at his best when recording his third concerto. That I can agree on.It's a completely different thing to say that it sucks and it's complete garbage.It's just disrespectful.
Just to name a few things- the playing is restrained in places (not every bar is oozing with lush romanticism like Cliburn-Kondrashin), but there are just jaw-dropping moments of dramatic tension, i.e., 6:45-7:12. The rich chord playing that follows is absolutely magnificent. Rach's playing has depth and contrast.- the candenza is astonishing: in my opionion, the best its ever been playedI could go on, but I would rather leave it to people who know this concerto (like Jorge Bolet) to sing Rachmaninoff's praises.I don't know why you even claim to love rachmaninoff. You understand NOTHING of his art. I think your teacher-regurgitated criticism of rachmaninoff's playing is a pathetic and pedantic way of validating your own mediocre artistic accomplishments. It's fine to critique rachmaninoff but saying his interpretation "sucks" deserves all the scorn its getting here.
6:45-7:12 of which movement? Assuming the first correct?Sure he does a good job there, but Horowitz does it much better sorry.And I agree with you there, he has a pretty kickass cadenza. But I like Horowitz Tocatta a little better, and I think the Ossia is just a better cadenza.Oh, did I forget to mention that he completely SHRINKS the concerto! That is unacceptable and you can't get away with that, I don't care who you are. If Rachmaninoff was reincarnated into someone else and entered the Van Cliburn competition and played it the exact same way, he would've came in dead last.And like what J Menz said, I would only listen to his third concerto for studying purposes. That's all. I think it was J Menz...Psh, I know more about Rachmaninoff than you do. And Rach is my favorite composer. The only two things I don't like about him is rendition of his third, and his Op. 3 No. 2. I would say his original first concerto but he fixed it so it's fine.Oh so a full ride to University of Illinois is mediocre? That's funny... Assuming you went to college, while you're still in debt, I only have to pay 386 dollars a year. What have you done?My teacher never said anything about his playing you dumbass, he was talking about his original first concerto. Learn how to read stupid brat.
If Rachmaninoff was reincarnated into someone else and entered the Van Cliburn competition and played it the exact same way, he would've came in dead last.
So would Schnabel, Cortot, Horowitz, Hoffman in his later days, Gould, de Pachman, Barere, all liszt's students and chopin's students...
I would much rather listen to a sloppy performance than half a performance.
Okay, I'll leave the discussion about why Rachmaninov's performance doesn't suck, and go to the following.Why?Maybe his notes are off, and maybe he cuts some parts. But don't you think it's more fun to listen to someone who truly gets the point of the piece?
Dang that's a good point... Cause competitions want perfection.
Taste changes over time and what was considered good form 80 years ago, might well be considered lunacy today.I am in no doubt that even a mighty pianist such as Rosenthal at the height of his powers would be thrown out of every major competition in the first round.Thal
Taste changes over time and what was considered good form 80 years ago, might well be considered lunacy today.I am in no doubt that even a mighty pianist such as Rosenthal at the height of his powers would be thrown out of every major competition in the first round.
I would rather leave it to people who know this concerto (like Jorge Bolet) to sing Rachmaninoff's praises.
And I'll bet that Bolet and Wild knew and understood the concerto, not only better than anyone on this forum, but better than Lisitsa also.
On the topic of lisitsa bashing..Pianists of such technical caliber, and with a genuine passion for music (which she obviously has if you do even the slightest bit of reading about her history), always have a solid musical/interpretive understanding, but also stand to gain a great deal from receiving feedback from another pianist at that level - no matter how refined or unrefined their ideas already are. Variations on how to approach to a musical idea (and life experience) make the difference in conveying more emotion, not a failure to approach the idea at all.A (subjectively) better performance from one pianist hardly reflects a lesser general musical understanding in the other without further investigation..........You don't have to like her, and it may even sometimes be fair to argue that her performances are subpar compared to other masters - but the "unmusical" type comments are just such rubbish.. I'll never understand how all the arm-chair concert pianists on youtube comment about "unmusical" performances from pianists with practically flawless technique, while in the same breath perhaps just beginning to discover with their attempts to play not nearly that well that musical ideas and sound image are imperative to a successful technical execution.
I doubt anyone is disputing her technical prowess or enthusiasm. However, I find some of the self-aggrandizing nonsense on her videos cringeworthy. On her Rossini-Thalberg Barber of Seville (a performance of hers which I do actually like, we find this from her "Most of Tr etudes are not difficult at all. But non of them is as hard as this piece." which I just can't agree with at all. This particular "armchair concert pianist" (if that was directed at me, inter alia) has played quite a few Thalberg paraphrases and half of the TEs, not necessarily to her level, but I recall reading that years ago and it stuck in my mind as arrant nonsense - it's not even the hardest of Thalberg's paraphrases, which are usually easier than they sound. Or her introductory comments to Liszt's El Contrabandista? They appear directed towards the conclusion that she's a better pianist than Pletnev and Liszt himself. And I tried out the skips passage she's going on about: didn't think it was that hard. All of this might be marketing, but it's thoroughly put me off, and there are surely more interesting pianists out there.
People are very ready to exclaim that a musical performance is bad or unskillful when really all they mean is it just doesnt quite match up to the way they would like to hear the piece...
The armchair concert pianist comment wasn't directed at anyone here. I think I just got a bit carried away thinking about some of the arrogant rubbish I've seen on youtube, nor was it even specifically about comments on Lisitsa so much as just any performance. People are very ready to exclaim that a musical performance is bad or unskillful when really all they mean is it just doesnt quite match up to the way they would like to hear the piece... The difficulty thing could be marketing, could also be an unscientific emotional response to a topic that is both subjective and also largely a perceived experience rather than an actual quantifiable thing. I don't think she makes a habit of teaching so I doubt she gauges any given challenge based on anything other than her own personal experience and path of development...but marketing is an equally likely option. I wouldn't comment myself, I haven't studied any TEs as yet, and beyond a certain point I personally classify everything as hard with no real variable scale.
Well, I have no more interest in Lisitsa bashing than I do in Lisitsa worshipping; as I've said before, she's competent, she's genuine about what she does when she's playing (as distinct from some of the occasions on which she's talking about her work) and there are plenty of worse pianists out there - but even to think to speak of her in the same breath as, say, Cherkassky, Michelangeli, Ogdon, Cziffra, Lipatti, Stevenson, Argerich, Bolet, Hamelin, Pollini, Medtner or Rachmaninoff (OK now, j_menz?!) borders on the absurd.
On the other hand...dead pianists are dead pianists, so comparing the living ones to them is kind of useless anyway (we won't be able to listen to them live anymore)...times change, listeners change. I assume that some of the younger audiences would not appreciate the playing of someone like Michelangeli (calm and easy looking) but would rather like something more flashy.
I think Lisitsa is doing a good job spreading the joy of piano music, is a good role model and has worked hard enough for her success, even though personally I am not touched by her playing the way I am with some other pianists.
I'm crazily deeply madly in love with Valentina Lisitsa