How does Hamelin do it?

[ahinton]

By "us", I mean those who think Hamelin sounds flat and unexpressive.
For the record, I learned the most important thing about piano playing from him: playing is easy.  It is this realization that made me admire him for many years and deafened to his unexpressivity in certain (but not all) kinds of music.

Alistair, you defended J. Powell for his atrocious renderings of Sorabji's works.  I don't know if he did ever play your works but since you are the curator of the Sorabji Archive... well, I don't blame you for being biased.  Don't bite the hand that feeds, I guess.

What utter rubbish!

You were talking about someone who has played my work and whom I am supposed to have "defended" despite your allegation of his alleged inability to do so; when challenged, however, you refer instead to a pianist playing Sorabji! Quick change of tune, I note! (though one might wonder whose tune!).

You are in any case the only person I have ever heard who has written of Mr Powell's Sorabji performances (are you referring to all of them?) in the way that you have done here and, once again, I must assure you that you are talking rubbish. Which of Sorabji's piano works do you actually know well? Can you play them better than Mr Powell? Do you know and can you name other pianists who can play them better than Mr Powell? For the avoidance of doubt, the ord you used to describe Mr Powell's Sorabji performances was "atrocious".

I have never "defended" Mr Powell or his Sorabji performances; I have had no need to, as they require no "defence". I have indeed praised them, as have many others, but that's a quite different matter.

Mr Powell's hands and what they accomplish when he plays Sorabji do not "fee"d me personally; they feed Sorabji's works richly, as almost all critics of his performances have testified - and what they achieve in so doing has brought forth many very positive responses from listeners.

From what you write, it would seem that it is not only your "damper" that is "faulty"...

Case clearly closed.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh dear, that one will get a response I feel.

In that, at least, you are correct, as you will note from said response; it merited one, wouldn't you say? - not least because the member who wrote of Mr Powell's Sorabji performances as he has done might well have sailed close to breaking the forum rules in so doing, given that Mr Powell himself is a member here...

I do remember a few years ago when Hinty was going through a Powell phase, but that does appeared to have died down now

Then what passes for your memory both deceives you and lets you down, I fear.

I have always sought to give such support and encouragement as I am able to give to any artist who has contributed to the Sorabji cause, just as I have endeavoured to give as much help and encouragement as possible to Sorabji scholars and score editors; they richly deserve this and far more for all the hard work that they have done in putting Sorabji and his work "on the map".

There has therefore never been any kind of "Powell phase" on my part or indeed anyone else's; what singles Mr Powell out from anyone else in the history of Sorabji performances is that he has considerably more of the composer's music under his hands than has any other musician - which is a plain fact rather than representative or encouraging of any kind of "phase".

as do the constant almost messianic hope of a new Opiss Crappycembulum recording.

If by this you refer to Opus Clavicembalisticum, a new recording of that is still very much hoped for (and certainly not only by me!) and it is most likely that the first pianist to make one will indeed be Mr Powell. However, a complete new edition of its score really needs to be prepared before such a project can realistically get under way and there have been other Sorabji editorial and performance priorities in the interim, as remains the case; for example, a new CD of seven Sorabji piano pieces is soon to be recorded and five of these have never previously been committed to disc - new editions of those five have first needed to be made, an edition of another is in progress and the seventh one will almost certainly also require a new edition as well.

However, I must add that J Powell is one pianist that I have completely changed my views on over the years. His Medins CD is beyond beautiful.

Indeed - but has your "complete change of view(s)" come about because you believe that Mr Powell's playing has suibstantially changed, or has it arisen merely because he has more recently recorded some music that you just happen vastly to prefer to that of Sorabji? I think that we should be told! After all, Mr Powell's Sorabji playing is still a force to be reckoned with today; he has, for example, given the world première and a second performance of the composer's sixth and final piano symphony within the past three months, having first shared with Alexander Abercrombie the not inconsiderable task of editing its score...

All of this, however, is off topic, as however Hamelin does whatever it is that he does, the only Sorabji works that he's recorded are the first sonata and the last of the Trois Pastiches and that's a long time ago now; he has, however, made fine handwritten editions of four Sorabji scores (that of Gulistān was used by the late Charles Hopkins for his recording of the work 20 years ago) in the days before music setting software became as advanced as it has been for some years now (everyone who creates editions of Sorabji works now uses it to do so).

So, after this lengthy and not always edifying disgression, it would now seem both timely and wise to return to discussion of the subject of how Hamelin does "it" - whatever "it" may be and assuming that there be something left to discuss...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Oh dear, Hinty has no toys left in his pram as he has thrown them all out.

Thal

[ahinton]

Oh dear, Hinty has no toys left in his pram as he has thrown them all out.

Au contraire, it is quite clearly a case of Thal having nothing useful to contribute to the discussion in this thread as he has thrown all his ideas out (assuming that he had some in the first place).

I took your remarks sufficiently seriously to respond to them appropriately.

I commented on those of faulty-damper likewise, despite taking them no more seriously than they deserved.

I noted that the stuff about Sorabji and Powell in this thread is off topic, which is the case.

End of story.

If you've nothing useful to say on a subject, there's no obligation imposed upon you nevertheless to try to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You should be grateful we have given you the opportunity for a bit of promotion.

Thal

[ahinton]

You should be grateful we have given you the opportunity for a bit of promotion.

How so? That's to say, where's the "opportunity" here? And what's being "promoted" in any case?

I could quite easily have written most of what I did in response to you and faulty_damper without having necessarily to do in such specific response, although I would not have chosen a thread about Hamelin and his achievements as the most appropriate place in which to do so.

That said, if Mr Powell's piano playing is being pilloried as it has been by one member here and if Sorabji is drawn into a thread where he has little place beyond discussion of Hamelin's editions of his music (which are not, I imagine, what the OP had in mind when asking the question that is the thread topic), responses to such issues should surely be unsurprising.

I note, however, that faulty_damper has yet to explain, let alone seek to justify, the entirely uncalled-for remarks tht he/she made about Mr Powell's playing which are not only entirely wrong-headed but also grossly insulting to another forum member.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

OK OK, keep your hair on.

[ahinton]

OK OK, keep your hair on.

Such as I still have of it is indeed on and I have no intention of losing any more of it than necessary!

Best,

Alistair

[faulty_damper]

What utter rubbish!

You were talking about someone who has played my work and whom I am supposed to have "defended" despite your allegation of his alleged inability to do so; when challenged, however, you refer instead to a pianist playing Sorabji! Quick change of tune, I note! (though one might wonder whose tune!).

You are in any case the only person I have ever heard who has written of Mr Powell's Sorabji performances (are you referring to all of them?) in the way that you have done here and, once again, I must assure you that you are talking rubbish. Which of Sorabji's piano works do you actually know well? Can you play them better than Mr Powell? Do you know and can you name other pianists who can play them better than Mr Powell? For the avoidance of doubt, the ord you used to describe Mr Powell's Sorabji performances was "atrocious".
...
Mr Powell's hands and what they accomplish when he plays Sorabji do not "fee"d me personally; they feed Sorabji's works richly, as almost all critics of his performances have testified - and what they achieve in so doing has brought forth many very positive responses from listeners.

From what you write, it would seem that it is not only your "damper" that is "faulty"...
Case clearly closed.
Best,
Alistair

I don't know if Powell has played your works, however, my point is still valid.  You defend those whom you have a vested interest in.

As a musician, I don't need to have heard Sorabji's works played better than Powell to know that it can sound like music.  In other words, I don't need a side by side comparison to know that his rendition was atrocious; he plays it like it's a piano exercise.  Even more concise: He plays like Sh8t!  Insult: He's just a pianist who plays obscure works because he knows comparison would be difficult.  Thus, critiques have no option but to give praise for his four hours of aural torture; otherwise, they would fear looking like idiots not knowing how the work should sound.

As well, since your argument has no legs, you resort to attacking me.  That is fine.  I can now brag that the great Alistair Hinton has attempted to insult me because he disagrees with my opinions.

I may very well take you up on your offer to play Sorabji's Opus Craptasticum just to show you how it should sound.  It has been a few years since I checked the Sorabji Archive.  Is the facsimile still available for ~$50?  Or is the revised edition I think you were working on now available?

[ahinton]

I don't know if Powell has played your works, however, my point is still valid.  You defend those whom you have a vested interest in.

He has played three of them. Your point - if indeed it is that, as you allege, I "defend" those in whom you perceive me to have a "vested interest", is far from valid, for the following reasons.

I am not in the habit of "defending" anyone and, since no one has been "accused" of anything until you came along with what you admit to being your insult towards Jonathan Powell's Sorabji playing, there has in any case been no need for anyone to supply a "defence".

I do not know what you men by a "vested interest" in the present context but can assure you that, whilst I have indeed encouraged any artist with a genuine desire to perform Sorabji's music, I have no more sought to coerce anyone to do so than I have sought to harangue any record company to record any of it; each artist and record company has made and continues to make their own decisions about performing and recording repertoire.

As a musician, I don't need to have heard Sorabji's works played better than Powell to know that it can sound like music.  In other words, I don't need a side by side comparison to know that his rendition was atrocious; he plays it like it's a piano exercise.  Even more concise: He plays like Sh8t!  Insult: He's just a pianist who plays obscure works because he knows comparison would be difficult.  Thus, critiques have no option but to give praise for his four hours of aural torture; otherwise, they would fear looking like idiots not knowing how the work should sound.

There are several flaws in your argument here, as follows.

OK, you don't need to hear someone besides Jonathan Powell playing Sorabji to know that it "can sound like music"; of course you don't - it IS music! (wrote he, stating the b******g obvious).

OK, you don't need side by side comparisons to help you evaluate what you might think of any particular music or performance thereof; fair enough insofar as it goes. But you do not "know" that Jonathan Powell's rendition of any particular Sorabji work is "atrocious", or that he plays any or all such works "like a piano exercise" or that he plays like - well, what you say he does; these are not things that you "know" - they are merely your personal your opinions and, whilst you are entitled to hold and express them, they are quite simply not shared by anyone that I've ever encountered and, beyond your snide and, frankly, meaningless comment about a "piano exercise", you provide no detailed reasons in support of your uniquely negative views.

Mr Powell does not only play works that you describe as "obscure" and, in any case, Sorabji's works are a good deal less "obscure" than they were 30+ years ago; indeed, on one occasion when he premièred a big work of mine as the second half of a recital programme in London, his first half consisted of Chopin's Polonaise-Fantaisie and Beethoven's Op. 109, neither of which strikes me as especially "obscure".

Assuming that, by "critiques", you mean "critics" (a "critique" is, afer all, what a "critic" writes), what you describe - again, without a shred of explanation - as "four hours of aural torture" simply doesn't figure, as the longest work that Mr Powell has ever recorded is Sorabji's Fourth Piano Sonata, which is not much more than 2 hours in duration.

As to critics not knowing how a work should sound just because they might not have heard it previously, many critics review first performances of works without their perceiving that demand on their time to be an especial encumbrance and, let's not forget, some critics can read scores so would be expected to have some idea of this anyway. That said, however, I have yet to encounter a professional critic who praises something just because it goes on for four hours (if indeed it does), so that argument is fatuous; critics will say just what they want to say, regardless and, to a certain degree, that's pretty much what they're paid to do. I have also yet to encounter a professional critic who has ever feared being thought of as an "idiot" for any reason.

As well, since your argument has no legs, you resort to attacking me.  That is fine.  I can now brag that the great Alistair Hinton has attempted to insult me because he disagrees with my opinions.

You have been neither "attacked" nor "insulted" by me; Jonathan Powell, on the other hand, has received both attack and insult from you (although hopefully he is unaware of this).

My "argument", as you call it, has as many or as few "legs" as anyone reading it might decide that it has. Yes, I do indeed disagree fundamentally with the opinions that you expressed above, even though I have no detailed idea what in particular might have prompted them; I pointed out to you that I have never heard such opinions from anyone else and that I have heard many contrary opinions, each of which is true and pertinent in the context of what you wrote.

I may very well take you up on your offer to play Sorabji's Opus Craptasticum just to show you how it should sound.

If that is how you would term Opus Clavicembalisticum, I'm not so sure that you would need to do this and it might appear to gave a less than positive impression of what you think about the music itself but, just as you say that you don't need "side by side comparisons" in order to figure out how a piece should sound, neither do I need you to "show" me how that particular work should sound (unsurprisingly, since my acquaintance with it dates back almost 45 years). I have not "offered" you an opportunity to play the work, nor do I need to, since its score is readily available and anyone is welcome to work at it and perform it if they can and wish to do so. If you choose to proceed with preparing a performance of it, please feel free to go ahead and then anyone interested can hear what you make of it once it's ready and you perform it. You'll get no discouragement of your endeavours from me and, if you play it well, you'll get the opposite - and not just from me, I'm sure.

It has been a few years since I checked the Sorabji Archive.  Is the facsimile still available for ~$50?  Or is the revised edition I think you were working on now available?

Facsimiles of both the autograph ms. and the publication of Opus Clavicembalisticum have for many years been available, each priced at £60 inclusive of mailing within UK (supplements are added for airmailing elsewhere). The new edition is not something that I have been working on personally and I cannot provide any further information on this at the present time; I would add, however, for the record, that Jonathan Powell re-edited several pages of the score - about 16 of them, I think - for his own use when he performed it, but we do not supply these. If you wish to receive any further information, please check the brochure on the archive website at www.sorabji-archive.co.uk and if you wish to orer anything please email sorabji-archive@lineone.net.

And now - please - back to Hamelin and his achievements here! If you want to start a thread about something else, please do.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Calm down man. Have another vat of wine.

Thal

[ahinton]

Calm down man.

Calm down which man? faulty_damper, by chance? That's not up to me to do!

Have another vat of wine.

Why? Are you sending me one? How very kind and generous of you! What wine is it, incidentally?

Best,

Alistair

[awesom_o]

You ought to work it out over some four hands duets!     

[ahinton]

You ought to work it out over some four hands duets!

Which two people ought to work out what over which particular four hands duets?(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[awesom_o]

Work out once and for all whether or not Hamelin is a great artist or a colourless, albino freak! 

You's can choose the repertoire. Pines of Rome is quite fun if you're pretty experienced!

[ahinton]

Work out once and for all whether or not Hamelin is a great artist or a colourless, albino freak! 

You's can choose the repertoire. Pines of Rome is quite fun if you're pretty experienced!

Well, I have no desire or motivation to try to work anything like that out and cannot imagine how it could be done anyway, with or without the possibly dubious "aid" of "some four hands duets", irrespective of who might be playing them or what they might be!

Some people get a lot from Hamelin's playing, some don't and some find that he has developed away from what they perceive to be an earlier apparent coldness and superficiality of approach; 'twas ever thus, irrespective of the identity of the pianist, methinks - one has only to consider how some people have claimed that Michelangeli and his hero Rachmaninov were "cold" pianists, for all their customary precision, whereas others (including me) find quite the opposite.

It's the same with Jonathan Powell and faulty_damper's apparent view of his playing (at least of Sorabji), in that the vicious views that he has vehemently expressed above are not shared by anyone else that I have ever encountered and it seemed only fair in the interests of balance both to say so and to point out that it is never a good thing for personal opinions to be paraded as though fact.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

More hot air than a Zeppelin.

Thal

[faulty_damper]

It's the same with Jonathan Powell and faulty_damper's apparent view of his playing (at least of Sorabji), in that the vicious views that he has vehemently expressed above are not shared by anyone else that I have ever encountered and it seemed only fair in the interests of balance both to say so and to point out that it is never a good thing for personal opinions to be paraded as though fact.

You want to know something?  Many years ago, in 2008 to be exact, after we had this very same discussion about Powell's playing, I got a PM from a fellow member (whom we both know) about said playing.  In the message, this member asked me not to quote him, so I won't.  But to paraphrase, he stated that he didn't like Powell's playing.  He couldn't say this on the forum because you and Powell are friends and didn't want to offend either of you.

You wanna face reality?  Very few people will ever have the tact to say what they really think about another pianist.  It's considered rude and they just don't want to offend.  But as a teacher, I would never tell my students they sounded marvelous and wonderful when in reality, they sounded like a piece of poo baked into a pie.  Being deluded doesn't help them improve.

I stand by my comments that Powell's playing lacks technical mastery and thus the music suffers.  I also stand by my comments that Hamelin's musicianship is deficient, though his technical prowess is not.  Both of them could improve if they ever realized they suck at these things.

I politely wait your reply, which will be expectedly in a manner that twists it out of context just to win an argument.  I'm not interested in winning an argument.  I'm only interested in truth and honesty.

[pianoman53]

I'm not interested in winning an argument.  I'm only interested in truth and honesty.

You had the American anthem played in the background, didn't you?

You're almost too stereotypical to be true.

[j_menz]

I find both Powell and Hamelin worth listening to.  The same cannot be said for many of their detractors.

Perhaps those who wish to denigrate their efforts should lead by example and show how they believe it should be done. Otherwise, it's just hot air, and not fresh at that.

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps those who wish to denigrate their efforts should lead by example and show how they believe it should be done.

That line of argument has been used a thousand times over many years and it is still invalid.

Hamelin would learn nothing from my feeble attempts to play a romantic concerto, but if he listened to Ponti, hopefully he would. If he still ended up playing like a computer, it would have been a waste of time though.

Thal 

[j_menz]

Hamelin would learn nothing from my feeble attempts to play a romantic concerto, but if he listened to Ponti, hopefully he would. If he still ended up playing like a computer, it would have been a waste of time though.

If you prefer Ponti, then by all means listen to Ponti. It does not follow, however, that Hamelin does not play like Ponti because he is unaware of him or cannot do so. He has his own ideas. That you prefer Ponti's is a matter for you, but it could equally be said that Ponti could learn a lot by listening to Hamelin were one to prefer Hamelin's ideas (Ponti's unfortunate retirement not being in point here).

[ahinton]

More hot air than a Zeppelin.

Led or the other kind?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You want to know something?  Many years ago, in 2008 to be exact, after we had this very same discussion about Powell's playing, I got a PM from a fellow member (whom we both know) about said playing.  In the message, this member asked me not to quote him, so I won't.  But to paraphrase, he stated that he didn't like Powell's playing.  He couldn't say this on the forum because you and Powell are friends and didn't want to offend either of you.

You want to know something? So - you and your friend dislike Mr Powell's playing. So what? If almost everyone thought about his playing as you have stated that you do here, however, his CDs wouldn't sell, no one would ask him to make any more recordings, he wouldn't get concert engagements and he would be widely vilified. For whatever reason your friend chose to desist from posting on this forum about his views, it didn't stop you, did it?! One could conclude that your friend didn't want to risk causing offence but you are perfectly prepared to take that risk. Well, you've taken that risk. Whoopty-doo!

Can you name any pianist that is entirely without detractors?

You wanna face reality?

I'd far rather do that than wade through what you write but, since you've written it, I'll deal with it as best I can.

Very few people will ever have the tact to say what they really think about another pianist.  It's considered rude and they just don't want to offend.

But, as we've seen above, that doesn't bother you.

I stand by my comments that Powell's playing lacks technical mastery and thus the music suffers.  I also stand by my comments that Hamelin's musicianship is deficient, though his technical prowess is not.  Both of them could improve if they ever realized they suck at these things.

Clearly, what both of them need is to rethink their entire approaches to the instrument and study with you; both could surely improve greatly were that to do this. If you reveal your identity and contact details, perhaps I could write to both and suggest this.

I politely wait your reply, which will be expectedly in a manner that twists it out of context just to win an argument.  I'm not interested in winning an argument.  I'm only interested in truth and honesty.

I hadn't realised that you had politeness in your repertoire; clearly, I need to be more observant. One thing that we do agree on, however, is in the lack of desire to win an argument; the difference between us here, however, would appear to be that you believe that there is an argument to be won, whereas I do not.

You have stated unequivocally and trenchantly your views about two pianists. I have disagreed vociferously with those views. I have also pointed out that said views are so much in the minority that I've never encountered them elsewhere. Had your views been both correct and widely held by listeners, critics, other pianists &c., neither Hamelin nor Powell would be heard of today because almost no one would want to listen to them. This is clearly not the case.

You have also sought to claim that I praise certain pianists in which you claim that I have a "vested interest" because they play my work. When challenged, my work suddenly became Sorabji's work. In any even, you have neither accounted for this alleged "vested interest" nor demonstrated that I have indeed done as you claim.

Whether or not you are interested in winning a non-existent argument, you state that you are "only interested in truth and honesty"; if that is indeed the case, then you would allow others to be truthful and honest in the holding and expressing of their views and accept gracefully that theose view might not coincide with yours, yet all that you write on this subject suggests that what you're really interested in is seeking to persuade others that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and stupid.

Anyway, I - and perhaps others here as well - await your preparation and performance/s of Opus Clavicembalisticum so that we will at last be able to hear for the first time how it should sound. It's a lot of work for anyone to accomplish - I think that we all appreciate that fact - so no one's rushing you; take your time. Perform it when you're ready. In the meantime, I can add only that you would be far better occupied in the preparation of that work for performance than you are in posting vicious and unwarranted bile about certain other pianists in the form of personal opinion dressed up as fact.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

That line of argument has been used a thousand times over many years and it is still invalid.

Not for our faulty_damper, it would see; he's considering preparing OC for performance so that we can all hear how it should sound, so let's all exercise due patience while he takes his time to do this and then we can all hear for ourselves.

Hamelin would learn nothing from my feeble attempts to play a romantic concerto, but if he listened to Ponti, hopefully he would. If he still ended up playing like a computer, it would have been a waste of time though.

If all pianists played like Ponti, what a dull place the world of pianism would be! Not because Ponti was a dull player, but because everyone slavishly following the same example would make for that dullness. In any case, Romantic concerti are not an especially large proportion of Hamelin's substantial repertoire, as a casual glance at his discography would reveal very quickly.

[ahinton]

I find both Powell and Hamelin worth listening to.  The same cannot be said for many of their detractors.

There's no doubting that!

Perhaps those who wish to denigrate their efforts should lead by example and show how they believe it should be done. Otherwise, it's just hot air, and not fresh at that.

Well, this is what I believe faulty_damper is now contemplating so, as I wrote earlier in response to Thal, let's give him sufficient time to come up with the goods and then we can all listen to the results. As to stale hot air, there's certainly been plenty of that around here of late!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

but it could equally be said that Ponti could learn a lot by listening to Hamelin were one to prefer Hamelin's ideas (Ponti's unfortunate retirement not being in point here).

Hamelin does not have any ideas, so I fail to see what Ponti could learn from him.

If Mr Spock could play the piano, it would be like Hamelin. Exact, true to the score and completely without emotion.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Well, this is what I believe faulty_damper is now contemplating so, as I wrote earlier in response to Thal, let's give him sufficient time to come up with the goods and then we can all listen to the results. As to stale hot air, there's certainly been plenty of that around here of late!

How terribly predictable.

If you stopped bum licking your mates and opened your ears a bit, you might actually have a different view.

It appears any one you have known for years and at some time has played Sorabji, is beyond criticism.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hamelin does not have any ideas, so I fail to see what Ponti could learn from him.

In your opinion, that is - although not even that, actually, unless you believe that playing Haydn requires none from the player.

If Mr Spock could play the piano, it would be like Hamelin.

Is this Mr Spock any relation to Dr Spock? If on the other hand you actually meant Dr Spock, it would be rather difficult for Hamelin to play like him, since Dr Spock is fictional whereas Marc-André Hamelin is for real.

Exact, true to the score and completely without emotion.

For you, evidently - yet, as I observed in a response to faulty_damper in respect of both Hamelin and Powell (and, for that matter, any other pianist that anyone might care to name), if almost everyone shared your view, we'd almost certainly no longer be hearing his playing because most people wouldn't want to listen to it and would long since have voted with their feet and their wallets to ensure that they didn't.

Neither you nor faulty_damper has to like the playing of either of these two pianists - it's not compulsory - and I have no more interest in seeking to shape the opinions of others than I have in winning some non-existent argument, but having an opinion and expressing does not make it an universal truth...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

How terribly predictable.

If it is so, that's entirely down to faulty_damper; I didn't ask him to demonstrate his prowess by preparing and performing OC - that was his idea!

If you stopped bum licking your mates and opened your ears a bit, you might actually have a different view.

Unlike some people, I do use my ears rathger than my posterior for listening to music and it would seem from the above statement that you, too, believe that your view must be right and most other people's wrong. If that's what floats your boat, fine! Just don;t expect it to float everyone else's.

It appears any one you have known for years and at some time has played Sorabji, is beyond criticism.

Appearances can evidently be deceptive, then. There is one pianist who wanted to play Sorabji and who asked to go and play his work to the composer himself. He came to play some of it to me first. It was so unspeakable that I was obliged to decline to take him to meet and play to Sorabji. He nevertheless went ahead with a recital including his music. I did not attend it myself, but one person who did said that he had queued up to get into many a concert but that this was the first one that he'd queued up to get out of. No names mentioned, naturally, but your unwarranted remark prompted me to mention the circumstance.

Best,

Alistair

[faulty_damper]

Well, it's pretty clear that Alistair has no legs to stand upon so instead of directly addressing those criticisms, he goes and attacks the detractors and then digresses to claim ticket sales are proof of quality.

You want to know something? So - you and your friend dislike Mr Powell's playing. So what?

If you knew who this person was, you'd realize the severe irony of your statement. 

[thalbergmad]

There is one pianist who wanted to play Sorabji and who asked to go and play his work to the composer himself. He came to play some of it to me first. It was so unspeakable that I was obliged to decline to take him to meet and play to Sorabji.

The playing or the music??

I guess you were not friends, so no brown nosing was required on this occasion.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, it's pretty clear that Alistair has no legs to stand upon so instead of directly addressing those criticisms, he goes and attacks the detractors and then digresses to claim ticket sales are proof of quality.

I prefer to sit when typing. I am attacking no one, unless you believe that to express disagreement represents an attack. I claim nothing for ticket sales per se; what I would say, however, is that if most people disliked a pianist's playing as much as you say you dislike Mr Powell's, almost no one would ever want to go and hear him/her or buy their CDs.

If you knew who this person was, you'd realize the severe irony of your statement.

I wouldn't, actually, for the simple reason that, whoever it is, he/she's as entitled to his/her opinion as you are to yours and I to mine, just as we're all entitled to have differing opinions; there is therefore no "irony" at all, "severe" or otherwise, in knowledge of your friend's identity, which you are at liberty to declare in a PM or private email to me without doing so on the forum, although there is no obligation for you to do this.

The difference between you and your friend is, as I have already noted, that he/she keeps his/her own counsel while you spout forth your opinion regardless of how anyone might respond to it and put it forward as though it is fact; that, to me, is a pretty fundamental difference.

Anyway, I hope that your work on the Introito and Preludio Corale is progressing well!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If all pianists played like Ponti, what a dull place the world of pianism would be!

Not even Ponti always played like Ponti and that is what made him a great pianist. So many ideas, full of life and vigour.

Hamelin has nothing to offer apart from bland precision.

Unfortunately, you need to accept that not everyone shares your views.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The difference between you and your friend is, as I have already noted, that he/she keeps his/her own counsel while you spout forth your opinion regardless of how anyone might respond to it and put it forward as though it is fact; that, to me, is a pretty fundamental difference.

Perhaps some people prefer to remain silent to avoid being swamped by your ramblings.

Thal

[ahinton]

The playing or the music??

The playing, obviously; that was the sole purpose in mentioning this incident in the first place!

I guess you were not friends

I'm not friends with anyone until I know them; are you?

so no brown nosing was required on this occasion

I don't do brown nosing; in fact, I'm no fan of fake tans at all - never gone in for that kind of thing.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Not even Ponti always played like Ponti and that is what made him a great pianist. So many ideas, full of life and vigour.

I have not criticised Ponti.

Hamelin has nothing to offer apart from bland precision.

So say you, but not everyone agrees, obviously.

Unfortunately, you need to accept that not everyone shares your views.

Of course I accept this and would not expect to do otherwise, so I've no idea what's supposedly "unfortunate" about that!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Perhaps some people prefer to remain silent to avoid being swamped by your ramblings.

According to faulty_damper, his friend preferred to remain silent in order to avoid the risk of upsetting anyone; in any case, as keeping one's own counsel does not mean that one does not read the thoughts and opinions of others, your premise is invalid.

Leaving that on one side (where it belongs), I should address faulty_damper's apparent view that I believe Mr Powell to be flawless and faultless and your view that if a pianist has played Sorabji I take the same or similar view of him/her irrespective of whather or how well they can play the repertoire concerned.

Faulty_damper does at least put forward one reasonable point, which is that one should not necessarily need to listen to several different perforance of the same work to be able to form a view, however personal, of the music itself and its performance (I paraphrase his words, of course, but I think that I am representing what he said fairly); I mention this because it is pertinent to your stance about my views of Sorabji players.

Whilst some of Sorabji's piano works have yet to be performed by more than one pianist, quite a number have been played by several. There are, for example, three recordings of Gulistān; were I habitually to suspend all judgement of pianists just because they happen to play Sorabji, I would appreciate all three of them equally. I don't. The all have their virtues and their differences. I have a preference and, much as I admire Jonathan Powell's (which I would readily commend to anyone), it isn't his.

Every composer is likely to get some performances that are better or worse than others. Every composer knows that not every one of his/her listeners will take an identical view of performances of his/her work.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

"Having heard Hamelin perform this sonata live and having heard him on this DVD, I have to say that it is by far the best performance of it that I have ever heard.  I don't know who in the past has recorded this sonata better but all of the ones I have heard were not interesting.

I hope he records this sonata because I have been looking for a recording of it that I can actually listen to and not think "this is terrible"."



"I have noticed from peoples' opinions about performances that were spectacularly clean and clear that they are called "expressionless", "emotionless", "technical", etc.  When a performance is given that is not entirely clean or clear, they are called "expressive", "musical", etc.

These are ONLY the opinions of pianists.  Perhaps these pianists have insight to how a poor performance is actually better than a superb one?

One fault in perception among certain pianists is that they assume that in order for a performance to have a good interpretation, there must be percieved technical faults (non-legato, harsh tone, incorrect tempo, etc.)  When these are not present, it is called to be inferior.  How can that be?

What is the difference between someone who really is attentive to his tone and making music to someone who is at the mercy of the notes?  Apparently, according to some, being attentive to tone and musicianship takes a back seat to piano playing."



Two quotes from posts on this forum in 2008; author, faulty_damper. Thal might do well to take note of the second of these.

I did just briefly review the arguments about Jonathan Powell from late 2008 - early 2009, from which it is clear that a number of dissenting voices felt the need to be heard in response to the comments of faulty_damper.

Just thought that I'd mention this en passant...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You have obviously got too much time on your hands if you can dig up 5 year old posts.

Please let this drop. You are getting terribly tiresome.

Thal

[ahinton]

You have obviously got too much time on your hands if you can dig up 5 year old posts.

If the 3 or 4 minutes that I took to do this (prompted, it has to be said, by faulty_damper's own reference to his posts at around that time) is "too much", then so be it.

Please let this drop. You are getting terribly tiresome.

So it's OK for you if a member writes about someone playing like "sh8t", sounding as though he's playing piano exercises, possessing an inadequate technical facility for the repertoire that he plays, having no idea how to make a certain Sorabji work sound and generally being an "atrocious" pianist but "tiresome" when anyone dissents, even though past evidence here and elsewhere points to those opinions being very much in the minority? I would have to say that, if this is "tiresome" for you, that's just too bad. Sorry.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

but "tiresome" when anyone dissents

Not everyone takes the length of War & Peace to dissent as you do.

Thal

[ahinton]

Not everyone takes the length of War & Peace to dissent as you do.

That is of course true - in fact I doubt that anyone does that. Apart from any other consideration, 587,000+-word posts would not be possible here. Furthermore, anyone who could write as well as Tolstoy did in that work would hardly be likely to waste time disagreeing with the likes of faulty_damper on Jonathan Powell or you on Marc-André Hamelin!

That said, one could equally say that not everyone damns artists in the ways or in the same number of words as has been done here either.

Given your personal view of Hamelin playing most repertoire (Haydn excepted), the question seems for you to be less "how does Hamelin do it?" but "why does Hamelin do it?". I realise that you don't know him personally but, from what you've heard of his playing (which I presume to be a fair amount), do you think that his actual aim is to present precise, emotionally unengaging performances that are faithful to the dots on the page but little else and that he doesn't really have much in the way of feelings one way or the other about the repertoire that he performs? Just curious!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I often find myself prefacing comments on Hamelin with 'he's done a lot of good work bringing less well-known composers into the spotlight, but..' He is a bit of an enigma - clearly he has a sense of humour; his own compositions testify to that - but when he's playing music which requires a little charm and nuance to bring out the best, it's just not there. There's a 'colour-by-numbers' approach. I honestly suspect he has too much facility for his own good and doesn't feel the need to probe deeply; there's other repertoire out there to move onto! Compare him and Earl Wild in Thalberg's Don Pasquale fantasy, Wild has a natural charm and elegance that for all Hamelin's dexterity he can't match. Or the middle B major section of Liszt's Norma: there's a live recording on youtube which I find almost unlistenable in its banal dry mangling of such sublime music. I think this is what Thal is talking about. I think Hamelin is at his best in slightly dry music - I still think his early Alkan Concerto recording was stunning.

[thalbergmad]

I was just typing a long post, but then I saw the above and decided it said everything I wanted to say.

Hamelin perhaps does not realise that there is more than is just written on the score, whereas to Bolet, Wild and Ponti, this was second nature.

Thal

[ahinton]

I honestly suspect he has too much facility for his own good and doesn't feel the need to probe deeply

The first part of this is what I described earlier as "Richard Strauss syndrome" and, yes, I do think that this has affected, if not afflicted, him at times in his earlier days but I'm far from convinced that this is still the case.

That said, there's no such thing as too much facility! - it's what you do with it that counts, not least in ensuring that you recongise it and that it doesn't get in the way of what matters. Facility, after all, is simply a term to describe the ease with which the nuts and bolts of the playing is enabled; it's not usually used to describe the mental/emotional capacity of a pianist and how that enables him/her to develop perceptions and get to the heart of the music itself.

I cannot help but be reminded again of what faulty_damper wrote here several years ago and which I quoted earlier, namely

"I have noticed from people's opinions about performances that were spectacularly clean and clear that they are called "expressionless", "emotionless", "technical", etc.  When a performance is given that is not entirely clean or clear, they are called "expressive", "musical", etc."

I do think that he has a point - and not one that is limited to discussion of Hamelin, either. I've heard the same or similar things said about Pollini, Michelangeli and Heifetz (though I've not heard it said about Heifetz's piano playing which, by all accounts [not that there seem to be many!] was pretty decent). I've even heard such remarks about Rosen and Ponti. If all of that proves anything besides the obvious fact that we don't all listen with the same ears, expectations or desires, I'd be fairly surprised.

there's other repertoire out there to move onto! Compare him and Earl Wild in Thalberg's Don Pasquale fantasy, Wild has a natural charm and elegance that for all Hamelin's dexterity he can't match. Or the middle B major section of Liszt's Norma: there's a live recording on youtube which I find almost unlistenable in its banal dry mangling of such sublime music. I think this is what Thal is talking about.

Perhaps he is - and if that Norma Fantasy recording that you mention is the old one on the Music & Arts label, I'd be inclined to agree with you; the recording itself is very hard-nosed, the instrument seems unyielding and the playing sounds to me like that of a "young pianist" whose development in terms of immaculacy of mécanique has way exceeded the rest of it - but this was all a long time ago and I've since heard him play that very work with far greater subtlety and thought than he did on that disc.

Compare that old recording to Grante's on Altarus (a far better recording on a much finer instrument, too) and the shortcomings of Hamelin's become apparent. And yes, sublime music it is indeed! Don't laugh (OK, DO laugh!) but, in one of my madder moments years ago, I began to arrange it for viola and double bass; yes, of course it was a joke, but it backfired on me and I ended up arranging the whole piece for that rather less than likely combination of instruments.

I think Hamelin is at his best in slightly dry music - I still think his early Alkan Concerto recording was stunning.

Same label as the Liszt, I think - and, once again "stunning" though indeed it is in purely mechanical control terms, the recorded sound I find awful and his view of the piece sounds more like a work in progress to me; again, he's played this far better since those days. "Dry music"? Not sure how you'd identify that in large swathes of Hamelin's repertoire! Iberia? Medtner's sonatas? I don't think so. There's a whole raft of pieces that he plays that fall well outside such a categorisation.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Hamelin perhaps does not realise that there is more than is just written on the score, whereas to Bolet, Wild and Ponti, this was second nature.

Well, that's what you obviously believe as a consequence of listening to him and it's not for me to disabuse you of your view but, as I asked previously, why, if that were indeed the case, do you suppose that he'd keep on playing such a wide variety of music? If I had his physical facility at the piano but was incapable of doing much more than reproducing the dots, I'd have gotten bored stiff with doing it after a few years at the very most; Hamelin's been performing for more than 30 years!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

why, if that were indeed the case, do you suppose that he'd keep on playing such a wide variety of music?

Because he can hide his shortfalls in certain repertoire.

You can hide being bland and uninteresting with Haydn and Sorabji, with Liszt and Chopin, you cannot.

Thal

[ahinton]

Because he can hide his shortfalls in certain repertoire.

But can he? Does he? Whilst I don't, as you know, agree with your view of him as he is now, that view has not enabled him to hide these alleged shortfalls from you!

You can hide being bland and uninteresting with Haydn and Sorabji, with Liszt and Chopin, you cannot.

You cannot hide being bland and uninteresting in Sorabji; even faulty_damper seems to believe that this is not possible! You can hide next to nothing in Haydn!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Whilst I don't, as you know, agree with your view of him as he is now, that view has not enabled him to hide these alleged shortfalls from you!

Indeed he has not, but he is not my friend so I can be totally honest.

I can only note his lack of expression in works that require some in the first place.

Thal