Mozart K.333

[yohankwon]

Relatively new piece (started in mid-April)

[faulty_damper]

There are a lot of small issues that add up to a big problem: failure to accurately express the character of the piece.

1. articulation must be in character, i.e. some notes should be held, not staccato.
2. dynamics are too loud and sounds angry when it should be charming.
3. resolutions are sometimes accented; it should be softer; tension>resolution.
4. cadence at the repeat of the exposition was too short.
5. the LH accompaniment lacks musical expression.
6. dynamically flat.  Utilize <> to help shape phrases.

[pianoman53]

Try to make it sound a bit more like a small orchestra. I kind of see where you're going with everything, but it's not quite clear enough for me. It has to do with touch, that you sometimes use a bit more shallow, and sometimes a bit more deep touch.

 I liked the way you did it in the beginning of the development. Try to do the same in the rest of the piece.

Even the scale work needs attention in that way. I know you're thinking about playing them evenly and all that, but I think it will be easier to do so if you put more musical expression in them.

It's the same pretty much everywhere. And don't be afraid to use a bit of timing sometimes. You're playing is pretty much straight forward, and could use a bit of time here and there.


That's the first movement.

[faulty_damper]

That's the first movement.

So I take it that you didn't listen to the other two?

[pianoman53]

You have a keen eye for the obvious, Mr faulty.

I had to start practicing, but will listen to the other two later.

[yohankwon]

There are a lot of small issues that add up to a big problem: failure to accurately express the character of the piece.

1. articulation must be in character, i.e. some notes should be held, not staccato.
2. dynamics are too loud and sounds angry when it should be charming.
3. resolutions are sometimes accented; it should be softer; tension>resolution.
4. cadence at the repeat of the exposition was too short.
5. the LH accompaniment lacks musical expression.
6. dynamically flat.  Utilize <> to help shape phrases.

1. Sometimes I prefer staccato because I feel that's how most do it for typical Classical era.
2. Yeah I was discussing about the dynamics with my teacher, and I plan to change a few things later. (and #6)
3. Most of the time unintentionally
4. okay
5. okay

Like I said it's a relatively new piece so I'm still working in things.

[yohankwon]

Try to make it sound a bit more like a small orchestra. I kind of see where you're going with everything, but it's not quite clear enough for me. It has to do with touch, that you sometimes use a bit more shallow, and sometimes a bit more deep touch.

 I liked the way you did it in the beginning of the development. Try to do the same in the rest of the piece.

Even the scale work needs attention in that way. I know you're thinking about playing them evenly and all that, but I think it will be easier to do so if you put more musical expression in them.

It's the same pretty much everywhere. And don't be afraid to use a bit of timing sometimes. You're playing is pretty much straight forward, and could use a bit of time here and there.


That's the first movement.

Haha I only see Mozart's sonatas as just chamber music-like, and I sorta want to keep the scale notes even...

[awesom_o]

I thought this showed considerable maturity! Well played, yohankwon!

I do think it could be overall more charming. Better use of dynamics and subtle rhythmic inflection will help the character as the piece matures (like you said, it is a new piece). Solid performance!

I agree with what faulty said about the timing of the cadence at the repeat of the exposition. In general, the timing could be more sophisticated.

This is probably my favourite recording of this Sonata, complete with its improvised ornaments and cadenzas:

[faulty_damper]

I'm in disagreement with Landowska's performance.  Same issues with accenting resolutions.  Poor articulation.  Sudden and awkward dynamic changes.  Overall, pretty obnoxious.  I would've walked out in the middle of the exposition.  Definitely not something any musician should strive for.

[awesom_o]

I'm in disagreement with Landowska's performance. Definitely not something any musician should strive for.

Some of her interpretive choices are pretty outside of the box! Nevertheless, her recordings of Mozart are highly individual, imaginative, and refined. No musician should strive to copy any other musician. However, every musician should strive to have a point of view which is both unique and compelling! 

[faulty_damper]

Some of her interpretive choices are pretty outside of the box! Nevertheless, her recordings of Mozart are highly individual, imaginative, and refined. No musician should strive to copy any other musician. However, every musician should strive to have a point of view which is both unique and compelling! 

Then play jazz or improvise.  Don't bastardize a classical work under the guise of being unique or "original".

[awesom_o]

Then play jazz or improvise.  Don't bastardize a classical work under the guise of being unique or "original".

What may seen as 'bastardization' by one person could be seen as highly innovative, original music-making by someone else. 

I think you see there being only one possible interpretation that is acceptable for each piece of music.

As a composer, I really don't see it that way. 

[faulty_damper]

What may seen as 'bastardization' by one person could be seen as highly innovative, original music-making by someone else. 

I think you see there being only one possible interpretation that is acceptable for each piece of music.

As a composer, I really don't see it that way. 

That's why you compose.  So if the music sucks, it's because the composition sucks.  Bastardizing someone else's work and calling it art is like taking a sh*t on Mona Lisa's face and calling it makeup.  Lisa may still be smiling, but the curators won't be.

[j_menz]

What may seen as 'bastardization' by one person could be seen as highly innovative, original music-making by someone else. 

I think you see there being only one possible interpretation that is acceptable for each piece of music.

As a composer, I really don't see it that way. 

Nor should you as a performer.

If you don't see the infinite potential for variety in a piece you might as well sell off your piano and buy an iPod.

[lazyfingers]

This is probably my favourite recording of this Sonata, complete with its improvised ornaments and cadenzas:

Actually, in Mozart's time, cadenzas were all improvised. Written out cadenzas came later being redesigned by Beethoven. Or even written by someone else other than the original composer.

Also, the practice of sticking strictly to the notes as to discover and "be faithful" to the composer's intent only became popular in the 19th century.

[faulty_damper]

Nor should you as a performer.

If you don't see the infinite potential for variety in a piece you might as well sell off your piano and buy an iPod.

This isn't what classical music is about; it's not about infinite variety.  In fact, infinite variety is absolutely detrimental to classical music because it means that it can be performed any which way and still be "correct".  In fact, no one here truly believes that, not even yourself.  To claim that classical art is free is like throwing sh*t on a dinner plate and calling it art.  Only a fool would pay $40,000 for a piece of sh*t in a can, and yet, there's a piece of sh*t in a can that appraisers value at more than $40,000.

What you argue is an intellectual debate, not an artistic one.  And it's a view that is adopted by those without the skill, knowledge, and understanding of music.  By adopting this view, it lets them be free of those rules since, by virtue of the inability to possibly achieve great art, it gives them an excuse if they ever fall short.

[j_menz]

infinite variety .... means that it can be performed any which way and still be "correct". 

Rubbish. There are still an even greater of infinite ways that are just plain wrong, unjustifiable or the product of error rather than choice.

Incidentally, your capacity to combine stupidity, pomposity and vulgarity in your posts is increasing, and is increasingly unattractive.

[awesom_o]

That's why you compose.  

That's not why I compose

[awesom_o]

Incidentally, your capacity to combine stupidity, pomposity and vulgarity in your posts is increasing, and is increasingly unattractive.

+1!

[faulty_damper]

Rubbish. There are still an even greater of infinite ways that are just plain wrong, unjustifiable or the product of error rather than choice.

Incidentally, your capacity to combine stupidity, pomposity and vulgarity in your posts is increasing, and is increasingly unattractive.

You need to look up the definition of infinite because you can't have an infinite number of ways to do it right and an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.

Also, you need to stop hurling insults because you're part of the problem.  Calling a person stupid, pompous, and vulgar because you disagree...  Have I ever accused you of the same when I disagree?  No.  ***.

[j_menz]

You need to look up the definition of infinite because you can't have an infinite number of ways to do it right and an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.

Infinities are not exclusive, and some are larger than others.

For example, there are an infinite number of prime numbers, an infinite number of numbers divisible by two, and an infinite number of non-prime odd numbers.

I'd have added "paranoid" to my list, but it didn't parse.

[lazyfingers]

Putting aside the use of the word "infinite" in prior posts, because I suspect that was used for colour rather than precision, and the varying sizes of infinity:

You need to look up the definition of infinite because you can't have an infinite number of ways to do it right and an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.

Why not?
We can have:
1. an infinite number of even numbers, and at the same time having an infinite series of non-even (ie. odd) numbers
2. an infinite series of primes, and also an infinite series of non-primes
3. an infinite series of infinities (there are an infinite number of real numbers between two whole numbers)
etc

[faulty_damper]

Putting aside the use of the word "infinite" in prior posts, because I suspect that was used for colour rather than precision, and the varying sizes of infinity:

Why not?
We can have:
1. an infinite number of even numbers, and at the same time having an infinite series of non-even (ie. odd) numbers
2. an infinite series of primes, and also an infinite series of non-primes
3. an infinite series of infinities (there are an infinite number of real numbers between two whole numbers)
etc

Since you two have decided to derail the thread...

Wait for it... you'll reply to the same post with another post.  Then again to increase your post count.  There.  You've just added 3 useless, off topic, posts.  But hey, now your post count is up by three instead of one.

[dima_76557]

This isn't what classical music is about; it's not about infinite variety.  In fact, infinite variety is absolutely detrimental to classical music because it means that it can be performed any which way and still be "correct".  In fact, no one here truly believes that, not even yourself.  To claim that classical art is free is like throwing sh*t on a dinner plate and calling it art.  Only a fool would pay $40,000 for a piece of sh*t in a can, and yet, there's a piece of sh*t in a can that appraisers value at more than $40,000.

What you argue is an intellectual debate, not an artistic one.  And it's a view that is adopted by those without the skill, knowledge, and understanding of music.  By adopting this view, it lets them be free of those rules since, by virtue of the inability to possibly achieve great art, it gives them an excuse if they ever fall short.

This post shows why you are not qualified to comment here. It's not your culture. Stay out of it, please!

[lazyfingers]

Since you two have decided to derail the thread...

Given that it was you who claimed the impossibility of having large numbers of "correct" and "incorrect" ways of playing something, and even using the term "infinite" (although admitted you didn't start using that word) my response is right to the point. It was precisely addressing a claim of yours, albeit using an analogy along the lines of the argument you introduced.

Then again to increase your post count.  There.  You've just added 3 useless, off topic, posts. But hey, now your post count is up by three instead of one.

That is rich ... given that your post count (3571) far outstrips mine (a mere 103), and your posts per day (0.951) also exceeds mine (0.844).

Also, only one post in this thread excluding this one which I consider a fair right of reply, was directed at your post. So, as for useless, off topic posts, you have no basis whatsoever, just like most of your other claims. I bet if you polled around here you would find more claiming that your posts are precisely of those characteristics, in addition to being incorrect.

You just don't like to be proven wrong once again.

[lazyfingers]

This post shows why you are not qualified to comment here. It's not your culture. Stay out of it, please!

At the real risk of adding to my post count (104 and climbing), this reminds me of an interview I saw/read about Artur Rubinstein who when asked how he could play the Chopin Waltz so many times over 40 years and still stay interested/interesting, he replied (I'm paraphrasing) "but I'm playing it differently everytime!"

[faulty_damper]

This post shows why you are not qualified to comment here. It's not your culture. Stay out of it, please!

Well, why not toss back the sh*t that got tossed here.

I don't even know what you mean.  You've said this a couple of times already.  Maybe if you played better and sounded like you're making music, even though you're not a musician, you'd understand what's being discussed.  Instead, all you do is take tangents.  Again, the only reason you posted was to attack me, not add to the topic.  What do you have to say to the topic?  Nothing.  Exactly why you chose to attack someone.

[faulty_damper]

At the real risk of adding to my post count (104 and climbing), this reminds me of an interview I saw/read about Artur Rubinstein who when asked how he could play the Chopin Waltz so many times over 40 years and still stay interested/interesting, he replied (I'm paraphrasing) "but I'm playing it differently everytime!"

He plays it differently each time because he had a flawed technique that prevented consistency of performance.  This is true of anyone with a flawed technique.

[lazyfingers]

He plays it differently each time because he had a flawed technique that prevented consistency of performance.  This is true of anyone with a flawed technique.

Hypocrit! You replied to my post which was not even addressed to you. So, you can do it but not me? Hmmm...

Another useless post from you. We all have heard your "Highlander" approach to music... there can be only one!

So, Mr technique-par-excellence, show us this peerless technique of yours.

You know, Artur Rubinstein might not be your cup of tea but he is able to play the same thing the same way if he wanted to. The fact that he chooses to do it differently, and that people actually interpret music differently as they age seem to escape your cognitive abilities and certainly does not conform to your "Highlander" Mr. Absolutism approach.

[lazyfingers]

Well, why not toss back the sh*t that got tossed here.

I don't even know what you mean.  You've said this a couple of times already.  Maybe if you played better and sounded like you're making music, even though you're not a musician, you'd understand what's being discussed.  Instead, all you do is take tangents.  Again, the only reason you posted was to attack me, not add to the topic.  What do you have to say to the topic?  Nothing.  Exactly why you chose to attack someone.

Why is it that you seem to have fights with almost everyone here, and nobody else does, Mr. Highlander?

[pianist1976]

He plays it differently each time because he had a flawed technique that prevented consistency of performance.  This is true of anyone with a flawed technique.

Oh my... No, he played it differently because of artistry and inspiration. Even if someone prefer other pianists, nobody who is judicious enough denies this.

[pianist1976]

He plays it differently each time because he had a flawed technique that prevented consistency of performance.  This is true of anyone with a flawed technique.

You made a mistake while quoting, I never said that. Please, don't put faulty words on my mouth....

[theholygideons]

You made a mistake while quoting, I never said that. Please, don't put faulty words on my mouth....

lol, didn't realise. I was meant to quote fauty on that.

[pianist1976]

lol, didn't realise. I was meant to quote fauty on that.

It doesn't matter. 

[dima_76557]

I don't even know what you mean.

That doesn't come as a surprise to me. My remark was, however, not meant as "sh*t", so you can quit slinging that stuff yourself in return; you'll always miss target, and what you throw at us will keep coming back at you like a boomerang.

This is also not about you being Great and the rest of us insignificant (or the reverse); those are merely your delusional dreams. The reality is that you have a very narrow view of the world, and no idea at all about Western art forms. It's your personal problem, and it's highly unlikely that anyone here will be able to talk sense into your head. Keep in mind, though, that stubbornness and pride come before the fall.

This is as politely as I can put it: However great you think you are, you have no business here telling owners of the culture how they are to enjoy their own culture. And you are really stepping out of line by insulting the legacy of the greatest representatives of that Culture after their death!

[dima_76557]

What do you have to say to the topic?

Yohankwon is a talented person. With good guidance, more than average interest, and everlasting modesty on his part, he has the potential to get quite far.

About the piece itself: Yohankwon has made the necessary disclaimers himself already. He really doesn't need me echoing what he wrote himself - it's a snapshot of a piece under construction. I have nothing to add to what the other members already noted.

[awesom_o]

Maybe if you played better and sounded like you're making music, even though you're not a musician, you'd understand what's being discussed.  Instead, all you do is take tangents. 

What you said here to dima_orgorodnikov here actually applies more to you than it does to him

[awesom_o]

The reality is that you have a very narrow view of the world, and no idea at all about Western art forms. It's your personal problem, and it's highly unlikely that anyone here will be able to talk sense into your head. Keep in mind, though, that stubbornness and pride come before the fall.

+1!

[cometear]

Incidentally, your capacity to combine stupidity, pomposity and vulgarity in your posts is increasing, and is increasingly unattractive.

+1 

[cometear]

He plays it differently each time because he had a flawed technique that prevented consistency of performance.  This is true of anyone with a flawed technique.

I wouldn't expect a more mature response from you.

It sounds better louder, not softly as most pianists play it.  Address the way it sounds as a real musician would.

Alright, nice suggestion! I am quoting you from a Chopin Nocturne thread when you were the only person defending a unique and original cause. It was interpretive, even out of the box. No one agreed with you, and you managed to send the thread on a 3 page war about it!

Then play jazz or improvise.  Don't bastardize a classical work under the guise of being unique or "original".

Well isn't this exactly what you did to the Chopin Nocturne? My goodness faulty, which side are you on? We're you responding to your past self? It sure seems like it!

My opinion is that you absolutely love to cause disruption and a commotion to satisfy your egotistical needs! I'm sure this is true, but you will probably deny it and try to claim that I am the one with the egotistical needs... or you will insult my playing... or you will somehow compare this to something vulgar... or you just won't respond at all! I think it's time you took a step back and apologized to the members of this forum (which I am sure you're incapable of doing)!