Rach #3 - Blah Blah

[thejeev]

You're Rachmaninoff, on your way to the US, you write #3 as a way to explode onto the scene. You're practicing on the plane ride over.

Why does this piece garner so much praise? What makes this piece so unique? And that ossia cadenza, the one Rach said was "too hard to play", but we hear people play it all the time? Why did Rach say this, clearly it's not technically impossible? Why is that ending so memorable, the descending chords? What is that special something in the piece which keeps you on the edge of your seat at all times?

I think I have discovered answer to all of these questions. In fact most of these questions can be answered in two words:

BLAH BLAH

I've come to know that masterpiece music can always be reduced down to a simple idea. I believe the Rach 3 to be based on the simple idea of a hilarious battle of blah blah's, back and forth, in varying moods. What better way to create drama than to just argue back and forth.

What leads me to this? Listening to Rach play. He recorded (most of) his 3rd concerto:

So let me give you a few timestamps that bring this out the most. Before I do, most people seem to "miss" Rach's playing. People say he plays too fast here, but instead of trying to listen to each measure, each note, just relax and let the music grab you, don't go looking for it.

I
6:00 - 7:08
7:25 - 7:31
8:52 - 10:15 (cadenza)

II
11:33 - 12:06
12:06 - 12:28
12:58 - 13:13
13:55 - 14:17
14:23 - 14:42
14:51 - 15:53
17:02 - 17:21
18:43 - 18:44

III
19:33 - 19:54
24:15 - 24:37
26:01 - 26:09
26:28 - 26:42
27:59 - 29:51
29:54 - END

I hope one of these sections tunes you into what Rach was really going for here. If you put on headphones and close your eyes, stop anticipating what's coming next because so many people "killed" this concerto by missing the point, and listen to what Rach intended, I really do hope you yet further appreciate his genius.

As an aside, here's Bronfman playing the Cadenza, and he does it pretty well, if only it were faster and less "serious" but nonetheless he gets the idea of the blah blah's pretty well:

1:03 - 1:08: "You want BLAH BLAH? YOU WANT BLAH BLAH? YOU WANT BLAH BLAH?!?!"

Then it's "supposed" to be allegro molto for an explosion of blah blah's, and THIS is why it's so damn hard to play. If it's too slow, it sounds too "serious" and misses the point of the little solo "feud".

Now if it was already common knowledge that this is what this concerto is about, I apologize for having wasted your time.

[bachopiev]

I genuinely do not understand what on earth you mean to imply by saying, "The Key to understanding Rach's Concerto 3 is ... Blah Blah"! What on earth? This really does not make sense to me. How does blah blah explain this concerto? Sorry if I'm missing something, but this post honestly makes no sense to me.

[thejeev]

I know it's hard to wrap your head around at first, all I can suggest is, imagine two people, entities, whatever you want to imagine, just constantly trying to one-up up each other with simply shouting "blah blah" at each other.

Listen to Bronfman's cadenza and just imagine "blah blah" going backand forth. Once you hear it, apply this to the rest of the piece, especially those times I marked.

What you'll begin to see is that the entire concerto is based on this idea of a feud. Sometimes it's animated/angry, sometimes it is introspective and more of a commentary.

The challenge is forgetting the piece entirely, forget all the "mild" performances you ever heard, listen to Rach himself play it.

In short, the entire piece is supposed to actually sound like a feud of "blah blah". As if someone were actually saying it. Just tell yourself "I'm about to hear a blah blah feud" and view the piece in this light, suddenly Rach's playing makes 100% sense.

[dcstudio]

you knw jeevs... it's not that I doubt you are receiving emotion from listening to Rach.   It's this attitude that you are the only one...that you have some special ability.   That those of us who have studied music for decades upon decades have done so without a spiritual connection and understanding of what we are playing.   That we do not spiritually commune with the great master composers in our own way and receive our own emotional perceptions in much the same way that you feel you do.   The difference is, I am able to use those emotional connections to convey the power in the music that I perform because that is why we have those connections.

BLAH BLAH? that's still English

To me, the Gmin prelude has a military feel to it.  I hear an army choir of proud Russian soldiers singing and marching.   I feel bravery mixed with despair... I feel the army is marching to doom. Marching to Death is what I feel that theme says--which in Russian works rhythmically.  I can visualize this quite easily and render it in watercolor if I so choose

now, my friend,  why is your "perception" correct and unique and mine is not?

how can you possibly claim to understand how I perceive music and tell me that you have a special ability and I do not?  I am able to let this music come through me and out of my fingertips...and I perform quite often....  do you honestly think your listening experience is even close to that kind of musical experience?.   there is no way you can know now is there.

these are not opinions...

[rubinsteinmad]

Marching to Pretoria

[thejeev]

you knw jeevs... it's not that I doubt you are receiving emotion from listening to Rach.   It's this attitude that you are the only one...that you have some special ability.   That those of us who have studied music for decades upon decades have done so without a spiritual connection and understanding of what we are playing.   That we do not spiritually commune with the great master composers in our own way and receive our own emotional perceptions in much the same way that you feel you do.   The difference is, I am able to use those emotional connections to convey the power in the music that I perform because that is why we have those connections.

BLAH BLAH? that's still English

To me, the Gmin prelude has a military feel to it.  I hear an army choir of proud Russian soldiers singing and marching.   I feel bravery mixed with despair... I feel the army is marching to doom. Marching to Death is what I feel that theme says--which in Russian works rhythmically.  I can visualize this quite easily and render it in watercolor if I so choose

now, my friend,  why is your "perception" correct and unique and mine is not?

how can you possibly claim to understand how I perceive music and tell me that you have a special ability and I do not?  I am able to let this music come through me and out of my fingertips...and I perform quite often....  do you honestly think your listening experience is even close to that kind of musical experience?.   there is no way you can know now is there.

these are not opinions...

I know I'm coming across this way, and while I have to respect that you have an opinion, I think you are way off.

It's great that you studied music, I can only assume that you're talented. but studying something doesn't always make you an expert.  

You're gminor analysis, I can't come to terms with. It has nothing to do with the military, the "alla marcia" is not a real march, it's just supposed to convey authority. That middle section is hardly appropriate for a piece, written by a 16 year old who is probably more concerned with his own feelings than that of others as most teens would be, to be about an army? The despair you are correct, but it's introspective despair, he's talking about himself, he's writing about himself. He admitted this to us. It's not a death march, what the hell kind of death march ends in a quiet and playing ascending passage? is that supposed to me, when quickly and happily march to our death?

To your question, I'm not a clasically trained pianist, but I can and do play, even with a dislocated finger on one hand and a broken pinky on the other. I wonder how those happened?

I can hear music for what it is, I do have an ability, I'm sorry if this upsets you, you don't have to listen or respond, but I am going to share my thoughts.

To you, and anyone else, who actually did listen to all the time stamps in my original post, the, Bronfman cadenza, while thinking "blah blah" and not clue in, I am sorry, but keep trying, it's there, and it's absolutely hilarious, Rachmaninoff truly was a genius.

[thejeev]

I know I'm coming across this way, and while I have to respect that you have an opinion, I think you are way off.

It's great that you studied music, I can only assume that you're talented. But studying something doesn't always make you an expert.  

You're gminor analysis, I can't come to terms with. It has nothing to do with the military, the "alla marcia" is not a real march, it's just supposed to convey authority. That middle section is hardly appropriate for a piece, written by a 16 year old who is probably more concerned with his own feelings than that of others as most teens would be, to be about an army? The despair you are correct, but it's introspective despair, he's talking about himself, he's writing about himself. He admitted this to us. It's not a death march, what the hell kind of death march ends in a quiet and playful ascending passage? is that supposed to me, when quickly and happily march to our death?

To your question, I'm not a clasically trained pianist, but I can and do play, even with a dislocated finger on one hand and a broken pinky on the other. I wonder how those happened?

I can hear music for what it is, I do have an ability, I'm sorry if this upsets you, you don't have to listen or respond, but I am going to share my thoughts.

To you, and anyone else, who actually did listen to all the time stamps in my original post, the Bronfman cadenza, while thinking "blah blah" and not clue in, I am sorry, but keep trying, it's there, and it's absolutely hilarious, Rachmaninoff truly was a genius.

Didn't mean to do this sorry.

[dcstudio]

lol...it doesn't upset me because when it comes right down to it I can play circles around you--keep your special talent...lol... I like my own talent just fine..   I promise the audience will be far more impressed with my playing then your analysis if we were to ever both be on stage.

perhaps you should further define the parameters for the expert you seek because you sure don't want an expert in music....

so you and I disagree on the gmin analysis... but you have no vocabulary, no conceptual analysis experience of music save for what's in your own mind.   You are going on straight emotion and using that to tell me that I am wrong.   It's great we disagree--but it makes neither one of us "wrong."   You are also entitled to your opinion, because quite frankly that is all you have.   I have decades of study and applied experience in music.   Click the link below my friend, hear me play and tell me again that I have no emotional connection to what I am playing...if you don't hear it--well there's 1.7mill views that say otherwise.   If you feel that you have more... please, by all means demonstrate that your skills and abilities outweigh mine and post a sample of your emotional rendition of the Rach 3.   You may play--but you do not play Rach.   I do.    I have experienced Rach through my own fingers in front of an audience...  many audiences.   You can be so presumptuous to claim that because we disagree on the gmin analysis -- you have a "unique ability" that I do not have myself?  

if you and I were to both play --which one of us would the audience think was "connecting" to the spiritual side of the music--and which one of us would be capable of causing an emotional reaction from the audience?  You may believe whatever you wish mr jeev   but I have a arsenal of facts, years of study, teaching, education and professional experience as well as a spiritual connection to music  ... and you say that does not make me an expert?   and you are an expert although you have no such experience... and your instincts are stating fact whilst I am stating opinion?  


I humbly beg to differ.


post your playing and people may listen if it demonstrates your ability to apply this analysis to Rachs actual work.   One of the best things about playing classical piano is creating your own unique interpretation of each work you play.    I guess I should check with you though first to make sure my analysis is the same as your "feelings?"   obviously to you my experience and education means squat...

best of luck.

[thejeev]

Come on now, you've never even heard me play.

You keep assuming that because I didn't "study" music that I don't know music. You seem to be of the mindset that one can't pick things up intuitively.

I did hear you play the first time you tried to flaunt your channel at me, and while I have respect for any artist, I didn't connect with your playing at all. Sorry. I don't like to sound rude but you've come into every thread of mine, taking more aggressive tones, so I'll respond in kind.

Your 1.7 million views are combined with all your vids, don't try to make big numbers like that.

You said you played Rach,  where is it? I saw you have Moonlight up, I'll assume that you're happy with your performance. I'll post mine.

If you and I were to both play, I have no idea what the audience would think, nor do I case, I don't play for audiences, if they like my playing, great, if not, they don't need to listen.

If you want to simply define expert as "put x amount of time into music" then carry the title proudly. I'm not suggesting this to be the case with you, but if told someone to spend 10 years how to build houses, and to build me a house, and they come back and build a rubbish house, they're not an expert. They may know a lot of details, nuances, techniques, but ultimately if they can't both produce and empower others to produce, they're just wishful thinkers. God forbid too many of these "experts" run loose and try to teach others... oh wait, this happens everywhere, all the time, with everything.

Listen, I'm sorry if feel "offended" by someone claiming to see a depth of music that you yourself are not familiar with. What I will tell you is, my original post stands, if you really are interested in my post, click the link of Rach playing, listen carefully to each section, listen to Bronfman's cadenza, read what I wrote about what happens at 1:03 to 1:08, if you don't hear it, then I am truly sorry for you, I hope it comes to you one day.

I don't know how many others out there actually understand the Rach 3 as I do, but Bronfman, Berman, Ashkenazy seem to be close ,but nobody comes anywhere near Rach though, and I have listened to every single rendition available on youtube. I want to say Argerich is close too but her technique is too tense and feels rushed. To pull this piece off, you need to have precise timing, otherwise the point is gone completely.

[perfect_pitch]

Okay Jeeves... You better watch it.

DC has proven himself in this forum for years, and there is very little to doubt about him. You however have ranted some simplistic and rather meaningless (may meaningful to you) rants about a couple of pieces of music, but sadly enough, if you like talking about numbers - in the meager 13 posts you've written - you have absolutely no credibility yet. That's something that needs to be built over time... which you haven't done.

This will be incredibly hard to describe, but all of a sudden, as I was recording and playing back samples (digital piano), something inside of me, my brain, the way I hear music, completely changed. It's as though, all of a sudden, music started getting processed in a completely different part of my brain, because I wasn't just hearing music anymore, I was hearing real thoughts, words, stories, as though the piano suddenly had a voice that wasn't there before (perhaps I just wasn't listening properly). I figured maybe I am just catching up to what most people actually hear when they hear music, and I was a late bloomer.

That was quite curious... you do realise that only a few months ago, we had a user who claimed that he could actually speak to Liszt personally... quite a nutter. I believe that you have quite a great imagination, however if you are claiming to actually know what Rachmaninoff was thinking at the time he was either writing, or internally composing this piece - then I hate to say that I believe that is simply yet another false claim by someone who intends to try and claim to be unique without being able to conclusively prove a damn thing about it.

So far... all I've heard you really say is...

"blah blah" "blah blah" "blah blah"

[ahinton]

You're Rachmaninoff, on your way to the US, you write #3 as a way to explode onto the scene. You're practicing on the plane ride over.

Do you have any idea how difficult this would have been? Not for Rachmaninoff to play his third piano concerto but for him to get a flight from Russia to New York (where he premièred it as soloist) several years before the outbreak of WWI?

What gives you the idea that Rachmaninoff wrote the piece "as a way to explode onto the scene" anywhere?

Are you aware the its second performance (again with its composer as soloist) was rehearsed in fastidious detail by its conductor even before Rachmaninoff himself joined those rehearsals because the conductor believed in the orchestral contribution to the score so much that he wanted first to ensure that it would be as near perfect as possible? - and that the conductor was no C-list celebrity baton wagger but Gustav Mahler, no less?

Best,

Alistair

[thejeev]

What gives you the idea that Rachmaninoff wrote the piece "as a way to explode onto the scene" anywhere?

From his bio:

Rachmaninoff made his first tour of the United States as a pianist in 1909, an event for which he composed the Piano Concerto No. 3 (Op. 30, 1909) as a calling card. These successful concerts made him a popular figure in America; however, he was unhappy on the tour and declined requests for future American concerts until after he emigrated from Russia in 1917.

Again, he needed something of substance to get him noticed so he could book concerts.

Your point about the conductor, that's interesting, because the orchestra is SO CLOSE to being right with Rach and really nailing some sections, but alas, they couldn't always keep up. Because of the feud nature of this piece, a lagging orchestra can completely kill the point. Imagine you're yelling at someone, and they are yelling back, but always delay slightly. The argument would sound stupid.

Thanks for your post.

[ahinton]

What gives you the idea that Rachmaninoff wrote the piece "as a way to explode onto the scene" anywhere?

From his bio:

Rachmaninoff made his first tour of the United States as a pianist in 1909, an event for which he composed the Piano Concerto No. 3 (Op. 30, 1909) as a calling card. These successful concerts made him a popular figure in America; however, he was unhappy on the tour and declined requests for future American concerts until after he emigrated from Russia in 1917.

Again, he needed something of substance to get him noticed so he could book concerts.

Your point about the conductor, that's interesting, because the orchestra is SO CLOSE to being right with Rach and really nailing some sections, but alas, they couldn't always keep up. Because of the feud nature of this piece, a lagging orchestra can completely kill the point. Imagine you're yelling at someone, and they are yelling back, but always delay slightly. The argument would sound stupid.

Thanks for your post.

My pleasure. Writing a concerto to première yourself that might have an early life as a calling card in US is hardly synonymous with doing so to "explode onto the scene there".

Rachmaninoff's orchestral skill had already been well put to the test in such works as his first two symphonies and Isle of the Dead (as well as the first two piano concertos) and it can sometimes be overlooked in the light of his astonishingly wizardry at writing for and playing the piano, as is the case with the monumental Piano Concerto of Busoni, another fine orchestrator.

I'm still struggling to imagine Rachmaninoff on some early prototype Wright brothers aircraft crossing the Atlantic with a Steinway Model D in front of him so that he could practise while airborne!

Best,

Alistair

[thejeev]

Exploding on to the scene was just a figure of speech, I simply meant he needed to get noticed, he was already popular in Russia, and he wrote the 3rd in Russia, but didn't have anywhere near the following in North America.

There wasn't a piano on the plane. He drew a mock keyboard and just worked on fingerings.

Part of the whole issue here is people loved the piece, a bunch of people tried to play it, nowhere near Rach's speed and precision, and everyone has the non-rach version of his 3rd stuck in their heads, which moves by much slower than he played. As a result, people are actually hearing a different piece. Imagine Flight of the Bumblebee played at half speed. It would sound like a 6-year-old practicing chromatic. Certain music must be played at a minimum threshould in order for the real idea to come out, otherwise it just gets lost. That doesn't mean it would sound bad, it just means there is a bigger gap between what the composer's intent was and what people actually hear from "mediocre" performances. Here's a quote from Rach himself:

interpretation demands something of the creative instinct. If you are a composer, you have an affinity with other composers. You can make contact with their imaginations, knowing something of their problems and their ideals. You can give their works color. That is the most important thing for me in my interpretations, color. So you make music live. Without color it is dead."[

He's bang on here, composers have this ability to "make contact"  with each other's imaginations.  It's a connection that's just there, I seem to have failed thus far proving that this is real, but I have to accept that some people just can't see it. I think I'm getting a glimpse of it, and I was hoping others would too, that was the point of my post.

I posted a recording of Moonlight 1st Movement in auditions, if anyone is interested.

Thanks.

[ahinton]

Exploding on to the scene was just a figure of speech, I simply meant he needed to get noticed, he was already popular in Russia, and he wrote the 3rd in Russia, but didn't have anywhere near the following in North America.

There wasn't a piano on the plane. He drew a mock keyboard and just worked on fingerings.

Part of the whole issue here is people loved the piece, a bunch of people tried to play it, nowhere near Rach's speed and precision, and everyone has the non-rach version of his 3rd stuck in their heads, which moves by much slower than he played. As a result, people are actually hearing a different piece. Imagine Flight of the Bumblebee played at half speed. It would sound like a 6-year-old practicing chromatic. Certain music must be played at a minimum threshould in order for the real idea to come out, otherwise it just gets lost. That doesn't mean it would sound it, it just means there is a bigger gap between what the composer's intent was and what people actually hear from "mediocre" performances. Here's a quote from Rach himself:

interpretation demands something of the creative instinct. If you are a composer, you have an affinity with other composers. You can make contact with their imaginations, knowing something of their problems and their ideals. You can give their works color. That is the most important thing for me in my interpretations, color. So you make music live. Without color it is dead."[

He's bang on here, composers have this ability to "make contact"  with each other's imaginations.  It's a connection is just there. I think I'm getting a glimpse of it, and I was hoping others would too, that was the point of my post.

And a good one, too (although it's not all about speed, as I'm sure you realise!). Rachmaninoff was undoubtedly one of the most towering figures in the art of piano playing in the past century and more, as was Busoni and they each had that capacity and facility that is usually richer in composer/pianists than in pianists who do not compose.

Best,

Alistair

[dcstudio]

so Rach was looking for a way to explode onto the scene in the US?

first of all there were NO commercial transatlantic airline flights in 1918... so he didn't compose it on the plane ride--because he took a boat here.  If this is part of your vision it is an anachronism.

he had been forced to leave his beloved mother Russia due to the revolution  and had been living in Sweden and Norway--odd that he makes no mention to you of the bitter homesickness he felt at this point as he emigrated to the US.   He only composed six compositions during the 25 years he lived in Europe and the US.   Upon his arrival in the US he had to tour constantly... it was said that it "was as if he had left his inspiration behind."    

yet you are envisioning him riding in an airplane that didn't exist and being inspired by his desire to "explode on the scene."


I do believe the very well-known facts of his life are in contrary to your vision.


I am sorry that you are unimpressed by my view count... 42 vids--1.7 mill views... my account goes back 10 years.   I also apologize that you feel I am trying to force my channel on you.   I only offer my view count as evidence that, in spite of the fact that you do not connect to my playing,  there are many others who would argue that they do enjoy hearing me play. You can make no such claim, my friend.   You only offer the 1st mvmt of Moonlight sonata to evidence your "expertise."  

 Why is it always Moonlight Sonata... lol.

perfect pitch and ahinton  are also long time members...  they are both highly educated in music.

this has been fun...but I have a gig tonight...  so in spite of the fact that I am truly hearbroken and so jealous of your amazing skills...  I guess I need to pull it together so I will be able to sit at my piano and earn the money I need to feed my family.  

     gee maybe I should just go work at McDonalds  


LOL.


it's not that I don't believe you are receiving these images-- it's the textbook delusions of grandeur that you are so clearly displaying.   You are the only one?  you really believe that? Composers can commune with us I believe that fully... it doesn't make you an expert in either their life history or in music when it happens.

[thejeev]

so Rach was looking for a way to explode onto the scene in the US?

I explained what I meant, if you can read.

first of all there were NO commercial transatlantic airline flights in 1918... so he didn't compose it on the plane ride--because he took a boat here.  If this is part of your vision it is an anachronism.

Nowhere did I say he composed it on the plane. I said he composed it in Russia. I said he PRACTICED it on the plane, because he did, go look it up and add it to the rest of your "very well-known facts". You're starting to sound ridiculous now.

he had been forced to leave his beloved mother Russia due to the revolution  and had been living in Sweden and Norway--odd that he makes no mention to you of the bitter homesickness he felt at this point as he emigrated to the US.   He only composed six compositions during the 25 years he lived in Europe and the US.   Upon his arrival in the US he had to tour constantly... it was said that it "was as if he had left his inspiration behind."    

Much ado about nothing. What does this have to do with anything that I said? Yes, he stopped composing until he got a house and restored it into a traditional Russian home. He admitted he couldn't compose out of of the purview of his heritage. Not even sure what you were going for here.

yet you are envisioning him riding in an airplane that didn't exist and being inspired by his desire to "explode on the scene."

I'm not envisioning anything, I READ it, go read it yourself. Stop trying to nitpick what I'm saying and say something of substance for once.

I do believe the very well-known facts of his life are in contrary to your vision.

As you've so decidedly demonstrated.


I am sorry that you are unimpressed by my view count... 42 vids--1.7 mill views... my account goes back 10 years.   I also apologize that you feel I am trying to force my channel on you.   I only offer my view count as evidence that, in spite of the fact that you do not connect to my playing,  there are many others who would argue that they do enjoy hearing me play. You can make no such claim, my friend.   You only offer the 1st mvmt of Moonlight sonata to evidence your "expertise."  

I don't care who likes to hear you play, or me play, I don't play for the audience, I play for me. The difference is, I received 0 instruction, 0 lessons, 0 anything. Technically speaking, my abilities should be nowhere near yours? I'm the zero remember, I can't learn things intuitively, because unintuitive people don't know a thing about intuition and how powerful it is.

 Why is it always Moonlight Sonata... lol.

Eh, why not? Most people play it wrong anyway, let's join them.

perfect pitch and ahinton  are also long time members...  they are both highly educated in music.

Good for them, I'm sure they're nice people (I mean that seriously ).

this has been fun...but I have a gig tonight...  so in spite of the fact that I am truly hearbroken and so jealous of your amazing skills...  I guess I need to pull it together so I will be able to sit at my piano and earn the money I need to feed my family.  

Knock 'em dead! And to quote Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata:

"Don't bother me! (in German the me is two sylables, which is why Eb always resolves to E)"

XD even though I'm probably the only one who gets this joke.

     gee maybe I should just go work at McDonalds  

I'll ask my manager and get back to you.

[dcstudio]

You're Rachmaninoff, on your way to the US, you write #3 as a way to explode onto the scene. You're practicing on the plane ride over.

the structure of your sentence implies present tense --the 3rd concerto was written 10 years earlier and excuse me this is still an anachronism...  as I said there were NO commercial flights in 1918  when he came here.  If he is looking to "explode onto the scene" than clearly you are speaking of his initial trip to the US.   You look it up.    I am sorry I guess I am confused as to which parts of your story you are making up or adding and what you are receiving from Rach... lol.   Yes, he practiced #3 en route to the US... ON A BOAT with a silent keyboard he brought along.


your reply didn't even address this. [/quote]I DIDN'T SAY HE COMPOSED IT ON THE PLANE.... I SAID HE PRACTICED ON THE PLANE[/quote]

The first transatlantic commercial passenger flights didn't take place until after 1937...    the event  you are referring to took place in 1918.  


now who looks ridiculous?

you will be far more convincing if you get your facts straight.  This is evidence enough for me that your vision is not accurate.


lol.

[perfect_pitch]

The Jeev... I hope you like Rebus puzzles...







See if you can solve that one.

[thejeev]

I think I solved it. The credibility bit is, even if people are wrong, but they all agree on nonsense, they are credible. The toilet part is where those kinds of minds belong.

How'd I do?

[perfect_pitch]

How'd I do?

Not even close... Try again.

[dcstudio]

I think I solved it. The credibility bit is, even if people are wrong, but they all agree on nonsense, they are credible. The toilet part is where those kinds of minds belong.

How'd I do?

we are wrong? you said he came here on an airplane... you are hilarious jeeves.   you didn't even take the time to verify the historical facts before you flaunted your nonsense here. That's disrespectful to Rach himself.. if you are right, and he is communing with us...he's laughing at you for sure...

@ perfect and ahinton--it's just like we were talking about on that other string-- some people go to great lengths trying to receive the respect and adulation that comes with being a great musician--without actually being a musician.  another one posting Moonlight Sonata even (didn't MS do that, too?...he was at least likeable) Another fantastical claim of musical ability to compensate for failing to reach their piano goals.  what worries me about this one is the "magical thinking" that's  a sure sign of schizophrenia.  Additionally the belief that he is someone alone in his ability and that makes him somehow someone we should all listen to.. those are  self-reinforcing delusions of grandeur.  This one might crack the top 10 strangest of all time here.   Blue-note pianist thought he was the only one  in the world to play that chord progression--but he didn't claim to be magically understanding what composers were thinking and trying to convince others of it.

[perfect_pitch]

(didn't MS do that, too?...he was at least likeable)

Erm... No, I wouldn't go that far. Was he the one that said Liszt talking to him personally, or was that another user?

I forget - we've had so many crazies on this forum over the last year.

[dcstudio]

Erm... No, I wouldn't go that far. Was he the one that said Liszt talking to him personally, or was that another user?

I forget - we've had so many crazies on this forum over the last year.

Liszt transcribed the Bach for him... if memory serves...  yes they do get hard to keep track of.  lol

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hilarious. Cellular manipulation of thematic material reduced to this.

Did you know that the opening of Beethoven's 5th Symphony is blah blah blah BLAH?

[visitor]

Hilarious. Cellular manipulation of thematic material reduced to this.

Did you know that the opening of Beethoven's 5th Symphony is blah blah blah BLAH?

i remember hearing about that.
also, everyone know's that Bach stole lots of the swingle singer's stuff off youtube. and his famous prelude is actually just a lot of 'do do do do do doo'

[chopinlover01]

Your description of this concerto (that being "Blah Blah") seems more fitting to describe what you're saying, rather than what Rach is.

[thejeev]

Your description of this concerto (that being "Blah Blah") seems more fitting to describe what you're saying, rather than what Rach is.

It's more of a blaw blaw than blah blah, if that helps. I posted the video and timestamps of Rach himself playing it. If you can't hear what he was going for, I'm sorry, but it's there.

[perfect_pitch]

I posted the video and timestamps of Rach himself playing it. If you can't hear what he was going for, I'm sorry, but it's there.

Oh don't worry... we know what Rachmaninoff was going for. We're just not sure what you're on about...



...or what you're on.

[symphonicdance]

Aside from the Blah Blah thing.

I don't like this recording.  It is impaired.  I remembered having read something that Rachmaninov didn't quite like it, too, but had to give in due to technology constraints at that time.

[dcstudio]

La do do do la da da da
is all I want to say to you...  

Sting is a genius, too with his finger on the pulse of the universal language of music...  so glad he changed his name from Gordon...

perfect pitch you and I have been accused of being a "gang" of friends... YOU and I...  OMG... this guy should have seen us a few years back, huh?  wow... that is something I never thought I would have ever seen in a million years.   I miss our arguments... you were a worthy adversary my friend... one prone to logic and reason... I won some...but I lost some, too.   Nowadays we can't afford to argue with each other anymore... lol.

[perfect_pitch]

perfect pitch you and I have been accused of being a "gang" of friends... YOU and I...  I miss our arguments... you were a worthy adversary my friend... one prone to logic and reason... I won some...but I lost some, too.  Nowadays we can't afford to argue with each other anymore... lol.

I guess we're getting mature in our older age... You were a worthy foe.   

[thejeev]

La do do do la da da da
is all I want to say to you...  

Sting is a genius, too with his finger on the pulse of the universal language of music...  so glad he changed his name from Gordon...

perfect pitch you and I have been accused of being a "gang" of friends... YOU and I...  OMG... this guy should have seen us a few years back, huh?  wow... that is something I never thought I would have ever seen in a million years.   I miss our arguments... you were a worthy adversary my friend... one prone to logic and reason... I won some...but I lost some, too.   Nowadays we can't afford to argue with each other anymore... lol.

So I see this is some sort of sport for you. I guess that makes sense...?

Perhaps I should apologize for writing "blah blah", when in reality the sound being produced is actually "blaw blaw", the aw instead of ah.

Aside from the Blah Blah thing.

I don't like this recording.  It is impaired.  I remembered having read something that Rachmaninov didn't quite like it, too, but had to give in due to technology constraints at that time.

The recording is masterfully done in my opinion, Rachmaninoff was VERY particular about his recordings, especially when they asked him to do piano rolls, he wanted perfection.

This concerto recording, while certainly not "perfect", is VERY close to what he was going for. Sometimes the blaw blaw starts lagging and the whole thing gets a bit distorted, but to absolutely no fault of Rach, the orchestra clearly didn't get the idea as Rach did, that's why he was always pushing pushing pushing for a faster tempo, because exactly as I said with Un Sospiro, when you have a musical idea, timing is crucial. If your timing slows, the whole idea of the piece is gone. Rachmaninoff, if he didn't like the recording (which I doubt, I don't see him releasing a piano concerto of all things that he feels didn't reflect its intent). If he was upset about anything, it was probably the orchestra not keeping up and missing the point. If he could have cloned himself to both play and conduct, he would have.

For those of you with free time, listen again, instead of "blah", think "blaw". And not just random blaw, there is a feud, a constant battle, sometimes fierce, sometimes playful, sometimes introspective. The whole thing turns BONKERS by the end, and it's the most hilarious thing I've ever heard in my entire life. In fact once I realized what the concerto was about, I listed to him play it, late at night, lights out and eyes closed. I laughed my ass off like you wouldn't believe. The reason for my post was to try and get others to see this too, and hopefully get a laugh, but it requires you to think outside the box. Everyone thinks piano concertos and large scale works are based on intricate, deep ideas. The opposite is true for this concerto, but he exploited the idea so wonderfully.

If there are any among you who manage to "tune in" and hear this, please share your feelings. Didn't hear it? Get headphones, close your eyes, forget where you are, pretend that the only thing that exists in the world is the music you are hearing. Try to pick out what it's saying. Not what it MEANS, to YOU, what it's actually saying. If you do this, and make honest effort in it, I am confident some among you will finally see it.

[themeandvariation]

I wasn't sure where to write this response, as there are responses to this contention of 'Blah' on the OP's 'Moonlight' thread  as well.
 I am wondering if the confusion is just over the 'terms' applied here.
To me, the OP is simply identifying an idea that is very common in discussing compositional analysis… That being, a musical dialogue going on between  2 voices… And if this is all that was meant by 'Blah', i wonder what all the fussing is about - as it certainly, also, wouldn't be seen so much as a revelation, really, but something common in music.
Perhaps if the OP would have framed the idea a bit clearer, it would have been easier to understand what she/he was getting at.
(Or perhaps there is more to this 'blah' idea that i am not getting… )

ps.. i enjoyed hearing the recoding..

[thejeev]

I wasn't sure where to write this response, as there are responses to this contention of 'Blah' on the OP's 'Moonlight' thread  as well.
 I am wondering if the confusion is just over the 'terms' applied here.
To me, the OP is simply identifying an idea that is very common in discussing compositional analysis… That being, a musical dialogue going on between  2 voices… And if this is all that was meant by 'Blah', i wonder what all the fussing is about - as it certainly, also, wouldn't be seen so much as a revelation, really, but something common in music.
Perhaps if the OP would have framed the idea a bit clearer, it would have been easier to understand what she/he was getting at.
(Or perhaps there is more to this 'blah' idea that i am not getting… )

ps.. i enjoyed hearing the recoding..

Thank you for your kind words.

You are for the most part correct, the Rach 3 is indeed a "dialogue" of sorts, but I'm arguing one step further and suggesting that, not only was Rach going for a dramatic "dialogue", it's actually a feud based on the very very simple idea of two entities shouting "blaw blaw" back at each other. These entities are constantly moving around the orchestra in different forms. The Cadenza is a piano-only version of this feud, that's why it sound so dramatic, that's why it constantly switches between higher and lower register by the end.

Again, if you listen to Rach's recording above, and think "blaw blaw" your brain will "tune in" and suddenly the Rach 3 is no longer the Rach 3, it's something completely different. It's a masterpiece, it's absolutely hilarious by the end, whenever I listen I always laugh out loud, not at the music, but at how Rach plays it, it's SO obvious (to me) that this is what he was going for.

I will give the most "obvious" timestamp as follows:

26:29

Stop think what you think you know about the Rach 3, and just listen to the surface. Listen to the piano, it's actually saying "blaw blaw", a real voice, as if it's talking. Do you hear it? I hope SOMEONE finally clues into this. Put on headphones, turn it up loud, listen closely, but don't anticipate, just listen, you'll hear a much different Rach 3 than what you're used to hearing nowadays.

[themeandvariation]

Yes, of course. 'Dramatic' dialogue.  It is almost a cliche to notice the structural  'at oddness' between orch. and soloist in many parts of most (romantic) concerti - like a 'david and goliath' drama, as it is a primary part of the structure. And even within the piano part itself - as you mention in the cadenza. (Though, not to be overlooked, there are parts where they 'come together' as well, as a unified 'voice').
All the best to you.
Theme.

[thejeev]

Yes, of course. 'Dramatic' dialogue.  It is almost a cliche to notice the structural  'at oddness' between orch. and soloist in many parts of most (romantic) concerti - as it is a primary part of the structure. (Though, not to be overlooked, there are parts where they 'come together' as well, as a unified 'voice').
All the best to you.
Theme.

Yes yes I know, most romantic concerti, and music in general, is dialogue. But this is a very special dialogue devoid of "real" meaning, people like to think that big works like this must have some profound meaning inside. This is simply not true for this concerto. If they want emotion, they should listen to his 2nd. Now his 2nd is a completely different work, it's actually based on his feelings, as he wrote it after his recovery and dedicated it to his doctor. His 3rd is just as bit entertaining, and some would argue more. Imagine a cartoon character duo rivalry, they are constantly trying to one-up the other. The Rach 3 is exactly this, in musical form, the narrative is in the music, Rach's playing is SO good you can actually distinctly hear him try to make the piano make "blaw blaw" sounds, as in the timestamp I provided above.

I hope someone comes in soon and finally hears it, I promise you your world will be shattered once you tune in.

[dcstudio]

generally speaking if a composer was inspired by something... they would indicate that inspiration and the work would be what we refer to as programmatic.   Berlioz Symphony Fantastique is a great example of programmatic composition.

...or are you claiming that not even the composers themselves were fully aware of this universal music language when they were writing...

if you were to personally ask Rach if blah blah was on his mind when he wrote the 3rd Concerto--would he agree? if he had to tell the truth.

[thejeev]

generally speaking if a composer was inspired by something... they would indicate that inspiration and the work would be what we refer to as programmatic.   Berlioz Symphony Fantastique is a great example of programmatic composition.

Not if, all composers are inspired by SOMETHING. What does nothing sound like? I'm going to write a piece about nothing, I'll just indicate in the score full rests. What I'm trying to get across is, sometimes this SOMETHING can be as basic as blaw blaw. I showed an example of how a contemporary song takes 3 simple words and creates an entire song. Rach only needed two, and he composed an entire concerto, because he was a genius, as was Liszt, Beethoven, and many other composers.

...or are you claiming that not even the composers themselves were fully aware of this universal music language when they were writing...

Of course they were fully aware. Not only that, I believe composers were "aware" of each other's true intent behind pieces. Composers' minds think differently than ours, they are incredibly intelligent, I know this by looking at how tactful they are in their markings, and how they use every single conveivable "tactic" to produce unique sounds. This is why Liszt loved writing transcriptions, because he "understood" music, he could extract ideas, make them more concise, build on them. He loved doing this, because he could get into the minds of other composers. Please don't misunderstand my use of the term "universal language". It's not a real language, there aren't any books on it. I'll try to use the following example. You know how mothers (maybe you have kids?) have a pretty reliable ability to "know" what's on their child's mind based on their behaviour? For example, a child will act a certain way when they need to be changed, or they are hungry. This is the "theory of mind" that I'm talking about when it comes to composers. Among themselves, they simply had that ability to, instead of looking at a child, they can look at a score, play it, and get an accurate gauge on the composers' "theory of mind" and know what they are saying.

if you were to personally ask Rach if blah blah was on his mind when he wrote the 3rd Concerto--would he agree? if he had to tell the truth.


I've actually thought about this scenario, if he were alive would I ask him? Not for any personal satisfaction because I am already convinced that this is true. However, I might make a joke and say something like "that 3rd, I heard it and couldnt help but think, yeah yeah blaw blaw". I think he might have found that amusing.

But in all honesty, I don't need to be the only one who hears this, it's right there in front of us. Just listen to him play as if you knew nothing about music, and just listen to the sounds he's producing from that piano, it's so funny!

[dcstudio]

there are formulaic compositions and what we call "absolute music" and there is also programmatic music... and yes if a composer was aware of these words that inspired these great works...
ok... so why didn't they teach this to their students?  or speak of it to anyone, or write program notes as was the fashion?    this is a compositional tool--to replace words with pitch, but there are many compositional tools and each master composer had their own unique way of composing.

so, if all composers are inspired by "something" as you say... perhaps you can tell me what inspired this composition that I am playing on guitar

as it is my own composition... I should know what inspired it... translate...  in fact we have many composers here on the forum...if you can translate Rach's works from Russian... well surely you could do the same for some of these compositions?

or does this only apply to long-dead composers of the Romantic Era?  Surely, Blaw Blaw isn't any more complex than my composition.

I swear as God is my Witness that should you "Rumplestiltskin" the answer you will make a believer out of me.  I will start a new thread.

[thejeev]

there are formulaic compositions and what we call "absolute music" and there is also programmatic music... and yes if a composer was aware of these words that inspired these great works...
ok... so why didn't they teach this to their students?  or speak of it to anyone, or write program notes as was the fashion?    this is a compositional tool--to replace words with pitch, but there are many compositional tools and each master composer had their own unique way of composing.

This is a good question, I have wondered it myself. Why would they not have taught this to their students? I think the answer is, they probably tried to (Liszt did teach composition) but the problem isn't simply changing words into pitch. Music is more than that. It's attaching a "tone" to these pitches, allowing them to form a progression which creates a narrative that possesses a very specific "tone". I don't think this is something that can be taught, it requires immense creativitiy. One needs to be meticulous with exactly how to modulate the pitches to create a desired "effect", the end result needs to sound "human-like" unless the composer is bonkers. It's sort of like poetry, you can teach someone the rules, good practices, but you can't teach them to be creative. It takes a pure genius to craft these works. I wish I could make a better case for just how "genius" these works are, it really is absolutely mind blowing. I haven't even touched the surface of "technical" analysis in anything I've presented yet, I got much too excited with the discovery itself.

so, if all composers are inspired by "something" as you say... perhaps you can tell me what inspired this composition that I am playing on guitar

as it is my own composition... I should know what inspired it... translate...  in fact we have many composers here on the forum...if you can translate Rach's works from Russian... well surely you could do the same for some of these compositions?

Now let me come right out and say something here. The ability to reverse-engineer this music requires:

-Meticulous attention to detail by the composer when composing the work (Accents, dynamics, rests etc). Without this, the narrative would be "generic" and can not be narrowed down. This is precisely what happens with Schubert's Impromptu's. They are not "serious" works, though they follow a "generic" narrative, it's not specific in any sense, and one can't "make out" exactly what's being "said" (though I can indeed outline the general narrative). In fact, it's so clear how these impromptu's are written. They really are that, "impromptu"'s, take a very very simple idea and plays with it on the fly. Not specific though, it's very generic.
-The "mind" behind the work to be of exceptional brilliance, creativity, with immense clarity in their writing, intention and expression

or does this only apply to long-dead composers of the Romantic Era?  Surely, Blaw Blaw isn't any more complex than my composition.

This applies to any composer who has a clear vision of their work, which is founded on real thoughts, who intentionally set out to write a piece based on an idea(s), and they have the intellectual prowess to have their ideas meticulously manifest in music.

Now "blaw blaw" itself is not particularly complex, but NO musical work's idea that I have encountered thus far is "complex". That's what I've been saying this whole time. The ideas are often SO SIMPLE, it's the CREATIVITY, the application of tools to bring the simple idea about, the various ways they develop these ideas, that makes these composers geniuses.

I want to make an analogy here. I might compare a genius composer's "voice" as wind chimes, very clear in their sound, intent, modulation, etc. But without the immense depth of expression, meticulousness in markings, the wind chimes suddenly become a foghorn, which is impossible to discern (unless the piece is called "foghorn").

Please do NOT take this as any sort of insult, I am simply saying, these composers' level of meticulousness when marking their scores is absolutely mind-boggling. Even tempo, whenever they syncopate passages, it's saying something about the tone of the piece, every single detail matters, and every single detail is just as important as the last.

I swear as God is my Witness that should you "Rumplestiltskin" the answer you will make a believer out of me.  I will start a new thread.

Do you have the sheet? I will try to provide an analysis of what I'm given, but if there is another work of yours that has any more "detail", please bring forward.

Replies bolded above.

I'd like to right now point out that, at this point I may request all of my threads to be removed and deleted, as I've yet solidified some of my analysis to an extent whereby I'm going to bring it forward through another medium. I appreciate all of the feedback, and I'm sorry to those of you I have upset, but there really is something to be said about these works, though here is obviously not the place to do it, neither is the way I decided to do it.

[dcstudio]

I was wondering what you would make up to get out of this...

because we can find you a composer or two around here with a clear vision of his own work...

and meticulous with all his rests and accents...lol  and syncopates passages...

by the way I took 2 semesters of notation along with 4 semesters of theory and sight-singing... 98% average.  writing "meticulously" marked scores and making them "mind-boggling" is taught in core classes.  Much time is devoted to harmonic and structural analysis of great works...what makes them "tick" in a technical sense... and the ways that composers broke the rules of traditional forms.   I don't understand why you would want to see the score... how does that help?

you do realize that MOST editions of these works have additional markings not made by the composer?  can you tell the difference?

I am a 4th generation piano teacher descendant of Liszt himself through my professor the late Dr. Jack Roberts..   I would like to believe at least some of what I learned at UNT was passed down from the master Liszt himself.  there is no way of knowing though really...  





   score 1 for the scientific method.

[thejeev]

I was wondering what you would make up to get out of this...

Damn, I was hoping you'd have gotten off the offensive by now.

because we can find you a composer or two around here with a clear vision of his own work...

Not to sound rude, but if a composer here had anywhere close to the "vision" that these geniuses had, they would be world renowned. And if they are, and they can commit to me that their work is based to some sort of real narrative, I'll gladly take up the challenge. Are you yourself willing to admit that you are as gifted as Liszt and Rach were when it comes to applying vision to your work? Be honest with yourself?

and meticulous with all his rests and accents...lol  and syncopates passages...

This very well could be the case. May he or she step forward.

by the way I took 2 semesters of notation along with 4 semesters of theory and sight-singing... 98% average.  writing "meticulously" marked scores and making them "mind-boggling" is taught in core classes.  Much time is devoted to harmonic and structural analysis of great works...what makes them "tick" in a technical sense... and the ways that composers broke the rules of traditional forms.   I don't understand why you would want to see the score... how does that help?

I don't care how many classes you took. I JUST finished explaining that you can't teach creativity. I JUST finished explaining that one can be given the tools to perform the task, but the inspiration does not come from a classroom. My challenge above stands, and I'll repeat, are you willing to claim your intellectual prowess to rival those of great composers and poets? Be honest with yourself?

you do realize that MOST editions of these works have additional markings not made by the composer?  can you tell the difference?

In my analysis of Un Sospiro, I used two versions. One I got from this site, one I've had for years. The copy provided by this sight had numerous errors, missing accents etc. It was almost a "yeah here are the notes" version. My version has meticulous markings that must be intended by Liszt, because their application is integral to forming the cohesive narrative I produced earlier. It is a tale about a french girl named Lottie, with some attachment at the end "-Do". Someone has a surprise for her.. blah blaw you know the drill. If the markings aren't from Liszt, then there is a genius out there who took a Liszt piece and transformed it into a narrative, and didn't tell anyone, and left Liszt's name on it.

I am a 4th generation piano teacher descendant of Liszt himself through my professor the late Dr. Jack Roberts..   I would like to believe at least some of what I learned at UNT was passed down from the master Liszt himself.  there is no way of knowing though really...  

Come on now, just because you're now claiming a direct bloodline to Liszt (dubious) that has nothing to do with his offspring's offspring etc.

   score 1 for the scientific method.

Responses in bold.

I'd like to make a few more brief points:

I've come to a realization, and I will share part of it, at my dignity's expense, but should it shift your approach to what I'm saying, then it'll be worth it.

Imagine a spectrum, but a vertical one. It's small at the bottom, wide on top, forming a shape identical to an ice cream cone. We have an ice cream cone.

The "ice cream" is the original inspiration for the romantic piece, the idea, the good stuff. Now the cone itself, the "spectrum", inside of it, there is melted ice cream that perfectly fills the cone up until the hard ice cream. So we have an ice cream cone, full of melted ice cream, and ice cream on top.

When we hear music renditions, we are "taking a glance" somewhere inside of that spectrum. Some people's interpretations are "closer" to the "ice cream" than others. What determines this is two things:

1) How well the composer "made his ice cream" ie. creative inspiration, made his vision alive through use of notation, dynamics etc.
2) How well the performer observes the tempo, notation, applies all directions, and creates a "product". The notation and directions are the "ingredients", the performer must take this ingredients and make ice cream. etc.

Over time, our ability to exactly match that "recipe" from the composer diminishes because it becomes more and more "diluted" by "not particularly spectacular" performances, which leads people to lose vision of the real final product. This is exactly why all of my nonsense sounds crazy to most people. To borrow from the analogy once more, I'm trying to point back up to the real recipe, and show us what we're missing out on. I'm sorry if you feel it's not my place to do this.

Please excuse the silly ice cream analogy but it really is a good analogy to what I'm trying to say.

To partially stay on topic to the thread, Rachmaninoff spoke of Horowitz's playing of the Rach 3:

"he swallowed it whole. He had the courage, the intensity, the daring."

Most people read this as "he nailed my vision". I actually don't, I think Rach here is speaking more to Horrowitz's commitment to putting everything he had into the piece. The piece isn't supposed to be something that one just picks up, this is Rach we're talking about.

Now before I finish, Rach also did make a comment along the lines of "this is how I wanted my concerto to sound hear on earth" or something like that. This is such a loaded comment, and I suspect I know what it means. Rach KNEW his 3rd was "hard" to pull off, he figured he would be the only one who could do it "properly", not just get through it, but really capture the "soul" of the music that Rach always talks about. I think the Horrowitz performance surprised him in how close it was, but it still wasn't quite there.

So what has happened? Horrowitz, who I have the utmost respect for, inspired other musicians to attempt it as well. The result? We now have a bunch of Rach 3 renditions that have slowed down to the point of, the real fuedal ferociousness has "diluted", and hard to spot. Horrowitz "made his greatest attempt" at the Rach. 3, and of course his performance was a spectacle, but I still feel Rach chose his words very carefully here. Besides, he was probably one of the greatest and most creative pioneers of "how to express oneself". He wouldn't be lazy on a comment he knew would be in the history books. He and Horrowitz were friends, why would Rach say ANYTHING long the lines of "Well... He worked really hard at it...", which is actually how I translate the above.

My interpretation of Rach's words about Horrowitz may offend some, but I believe the above to be absolutely correct. I'm sorry if "confidence in one's idea" comes off to any of you as "delusional".

[dcstudio]

I never said bloodline... I said I am a piano teacher descendant... my teacher's, teacher's, teacher's, teacher was Liszt.  I would like to hope at least something I learned from Dr. Roberts came from Liszt himself.  that's my connection to Liszt and I would say it's a fair one... that's all.  

It's funny that you depend on the score... your absolutely amateur way of referring to the notational elements tells me that you don't have a clue.

I have offered ways for you to prove this objectively... so many reasons why there are so many predicating conditions for this ability of yours.  So many outs you leave your self.

it seems highly situation based and transient...  

lol... I think you are full of baloney completely and I have for a while..  I don't think you believe you have any power whatsoever you are just farming reactions...

see ya.

[thejeev]

I never said bloodline... I said I am a piano teacher descendant... my teacher's, teacher's, teacher's, teacher was Liszt.  I would like to hope at least something I learned from Dr. Roberts came from Liszt himself.  that's my connection to Liszt and I would say it's a fair one... that's all. 

"I am a 4th generation piano teacher descendant of Liszt himself" bit threw me off


I have offered ways for you to prove this objectively... so many reasons why there are so many predicating conditions for this ability of yours.

I told you it's coming.

it seems highly situation based and transient... 

lol... I think you are full of baloney completely and I have for a while..  I don't think you believe you have any power whatsoever you are just farming reactions...

You got me. I decided the best use of my time is to sit on a forum and make things up. A piano forum, at that. If my intention was to get reactions, I'd go somewhere with bigger bang for the buck. This isn't about having an ability or power, it's not what I'm trying to sell. I'm saying that these composers' works are much more profound than I think we realize. I was hoping to persuade someone else to see the beauty I see. If I'm just here for reactions and you believe none of what I say, simply ignore me and continue about your life.

see ya.

[dcstudio]

but I am having so much fun...

you wouldn't be the first to figure the best use of their time is to come here and try and convince people that they know something they don't or can do something they can't.

if you are serious... than read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

[thejeev]

but I am having so much fun...

you wouldn't be the first to figure the best use of their time is to come here and try and convince people that they know something they don't or can do something they can't.

if you are serious... than read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

From the first sentence...

...cannot be justified by reason and observation.

Your evaluation of my "reasoning" is subjective in the first place, and is polluted by your insistent need to keep bringing up your 47 years retort.

Here's one for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.

Incase you don't see how this applies to you: you'd rather stick to your 47 years, and stick to your refusal that god forbid someone else discover something that you're not aware of, it's not fair!

[tenk]

Oh Jeev...

We've had so many snowflakes like you come through here. Only "they" can truly appreciate someone's genius. "They" have some deep insight into the composition/composing process that the rest of us plebs will never comprehend. "They" alone have the true vision for a piece. Each time this happens, all you people do is remind me of this:



When you make your "blah blah" Rach 3 debut to rapturous reviews at Carnegie, give me a shout. Until then, your keyboard-warrior rantings are worthless.

This of course isn't to say that people are not entitled to their own interpretations of pieces, but the typical blustering of fools like you that come and go on this board is always good for a chuckle.

[thejeev]

Oh Jeev...

We've had so many snowflakes like you come through here. Only "they" can truly appreciate someone's genius. "They" have some deep insight into the composition/composing process that the rest of us plebs will never comprehend. "They" alone have the true vision for a piece. Each time this happens, all you people do is remind me of this:



When you make your "blah blah" Rach 3 debut to rapturous reviews at Carnegie, give me a shout. Until then, your keyboard-warrior rantings are worthless.

This of course isn't to say that people are not entitled to their own interpretations of pieces, but the typical blustering of fools like you that come and go on this board is always good for a chuckle.

The only problem with your point is, I never once claimed that I'm the only one who can appreciate someone's genius. I came here share what I was seeing, gauge whether or not everyone else saw it too, and make a case for it. If you read my original post,  I explicitly said that I apologized if this was common knowledge. I didn't care with an earth-shattering revelation that only I knew, I honestly had no idea what people thought of the piece already.

I came here with good intentions to explain what these pieces were about. I was met with ridicule, now including yourself, as I had not realized people weren't aware of the true meaning of these pieces.

I'd love to play Rach's 3rd, and if I do, I'll save you a seat. I hope you like blaw blaw battles, you're in for one hell of a show.

I'm glad you're chuckling. I'm chuckling too, for a different reason.

[medtnaculus]

While it may seem nice to share this idea with others it ended coming off as pretentious.

It was always my understanding that the whole idea of a concerto revolves around a dialogue between the soloist and orchestra -- often a sort of battle or argument. The two elements don't so much merge together but act against each other. So I guess this applies to all concertos really.

Perhaps next time I guess you can try to word it slightly differently to avoid huge reactions like in this thread.