Rach #3 - Blah Blah

[thejeev]

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

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.

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

As I've said before, this piece is not simply a "dialogue". It's a specific feud, with specific intent to sound like "blaw blaw". I have the score, I can point out the writing techniques he used to accomplish this. This is a real blaw blaw battle.

Who the hell would make a thread "Just heard a piece, there was some dialogue..." well of course there was.

[ahinton]

I'd like to right now point out that, at this point I may request all of my threads to be removed and deleted

I think that you might find this considerably more problematic that you realise; look what happened to member m1469, who wanted to do the same at one point but discovered that the only way to achieve it was for her to trawl through all of them and delete the text of each post manually and substitute a full stop; OK, she had a lot more posts to her credit than you, but...

Best,

Alistair

[tenk]

as I had not realized people weren't aware of the true meaning of these pieces.

Unless English isn't your first language (in which case you might now know how pretentious you sound), this statement alone proves my point. Thank you.

[thejeev]

Unless English isn't your first language (in which case you might now know how pretentious you sound), this statement alone proves my point. Thank you.

I really don't mean to sound pretentious, but I am forced on the defensive here.

I just had an idea. I want to try an experiment of sorts. I have an idea for a piano piece I am going to compose shortly, I will share it soon. If I do have some sort of ability to see real meaning in pieces, surely this should mean I could come up with my own and "project" certain thoughts back at you. Let us see if this is the case. My only ask is, you listen closely to the rendition, and keep in mind this is coming from someone who never composed, or ever thought of, composing anything. Anyone interested?

[tenk]

I will always keep an open mind when hearing a new piece. I look forward to your composition!

[themeandvariation]

Sure.  Have at it!
Good luck with your first piece.

[medtnaculus]

As I've said before, this piece is not simply a "dialogue". It's a specific feud, with specific intent to sound like "blaw blaw". I have the score, I can point out the writing techniques he used to accomplish this. This is a real blaw blaw battle.

Who the hell would make a thread "Just heard a piece, there was some dialogue..." well of course there was.

I really don't mean to sound pretentious

[xdjuicebox]

I think he means Rachmaninoff constructed the entire thing off of one single two-note phrase, and that is just two people going back and forth?

Also, in the Rachmaninoff recording, I heard it was VERY sped up and he had to cut a bunch of stuff out because the recording company needed to fit it on one side of a record. Most renditions I hear last around 40 minutes...

[bachopiev]

Now that this idea has been fleshed out more, I to some extent see what you are saying. But I think your phrasing of "blaw blaw blaw" is highly misleading, confusing, and slightly nonsensical.

Saying that the whole mystery of a piece's interpretation revolves around three words (or one word repeated three times) is quite odd. I believe that what you are trying to get at is the following:

Rach's Concerto 3 represents a constant dialogue/feud between soloist and orchestra, between high register and low register, between thickness and thinness, between right hand and left hand -- in short, this piece represents an all-out feud between everything.

If this is was you were trying to get across, you should have phrased it as such.

I appreciate you trying to share your interpretation of the piece. Though your first comment was indeed quite humble, you got a bit pretentious after that, I think. Your intentions seem to have been good, though -- I think you meant no offense -- but I think if you had phrased it more clearly, it would make more sense.

Furthermore, I'm curious to see your "re-scoring" of Lizst' "Un Sospiro". Do you really think that your scoring, with additional annotations, is more accurate and helpful to performers than the original manuscript provided by Mr. Lizst? Should not performers (pianists) be free to choose the interpretation that they feel a connection to, rather than follow your individual opinion? Though you may have an ability to see every single work of absolute music as programmatic music, this does not by any means mean that that is how the composer intended it -- and as such, you should not impose your own interpretation of absolutely music on the score. It is fine to share an opinion of pianostreet.com, but to add it to a score is decidedly pretentious, in my opinion.

Cheers!

[thejeev]

Now that this idea has been fleshed out more, I to some extent see what you are saying. But I think your phrasing of "blaw blaw blaw" is highly misleading, confusing, and slightly nonsensical.

Saying that the whole mystery of a piece's interpretation revolves around three words (or one word repeated three times) is quite odd. I believe that what you are trying to get at is the following:

Rach's Concerto 3 represents a constant dialogue/feud between soloist and orchestra, between high register and low register, between thickness and thinness, between right hand and left hand -- in short, this piece represents an all-out feud between everything.

If this is was you were trying to get across, you should have phrased it as such.

The above is mostly correct, except once again, the explicit idea was in fact "blaw blaw". It's not three, not two, sometimes it's more, it depends on what section of the concerto you're looking at. The ossia cadenza works in two's "Blaw blaw! blaw blaw!" In fact I really wish someone would seriously take the following into consideration:

1:12 - "You want Blaw blaw? You want blaw blaw?! YOU WANT BLAW BLAW?!!
Allegro Molto: Blaw blaw | blaw blaw etc etc

This is SUPPOSED to go into 'ALLEGRO MOLTO', but as Rach said "it's too hard to play". What did he mean? To produce that authentic "blaw blaw" dialogue, you really need to play a true allegro molto. Slowing it down loses the effect. Nobody plays it up to speed as Rach intended. Allegro Molto is FAST. It returns to ALLEGRO MOLTO by the end of the Cadenza, but not a single recording I've heard does this. It really is "too hard to play" but I'll make my own recording to prove this is what Rach was going for, it's pretty obvious. I can't hit every note in the left hand because my pinky finger joint is dislocated (thanks Rach).

I appreciate you trying to share your interpretation of the piece. Though your first comment was indeed quite humble, you got a bit pretentious after that, I think. Your intentions seem to have been good, though -- I think you meant no offense -- but I think if you had phrased it more clearly, it would make more sense.

Thank you, I did take a more aggressive tone, but I assure you I have absolutely no interest in sounding pretentious.

Furthermore, I'm curious to see your "re-scoring" of Lizst' "Un Sospiro". Do you really think that your scoring, with additional annotations, is more accurate and helpful to performers than the original manuscript provided by Mr. Lizst? Should not performers (pianists) be free to choose the interpretation that they feel a connection to, rather than follow your individual opinion? Though you may have an ability to see every single work of absolute music as programmatic music, this does not by any means mean that that is how the composer intended it -- and as such, you should not impose your own interpretation of absolutely music on the score. It is fine to share an opinion of pianostreet.com, but to add it to a score is decidedly pretentious, in my opinion.

I didn't rescore anything. The edition I used is G. Schirmer Inc, distributed by Hal Leonard Corp. This is the edition with the "correct" markings. The edition I got from this website is the one that's lacking on articulation. In fact, the website version, if played 100% correctly, wouldn't sound anything like the edition I have (the notes yes, but the intent of the piece is gone). I don't see every work as program music. I'm not imposing interpretations on anything, I'm simply playing the dynamics and articulation as the composer indicated, and piecing together what it all means. There is nothing inventive going on here, it's all there in the music.

Cheers!

Replies in bold, thanks for taking the time to reply!

[dcstudio]

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.

I have experience... training and an understanding of music theory, notation, form & analysis, part-writing, composition, and host of other terms and concepts you do not even know exist... as do many others here.  

YOU have an opinion... lol.  that your brain is infallible and your fantasy is truth...if in fact you were ever serious.


may I congratulate you jeeves on one of the best trolling threads I have ever seen in 10 years of being a member on PS.   Seriously...

the music I could actually visualize... but when you started talking about how you are dependent on the "mind-blowing" markings of only meticulous composers....  that was never part of your original description.   You described your experience in detail when you first posted.... you presented yourself as someone who "never studied music" whose mind all of the sudden started "hearing" things differently.   How are you able to decipher full orchestral scores when you are barely able to plug through Moonlight Sonata...   refer to your "musical expert" thread... post #1.  You may know a little bit about piano from playing it.. but you couldn't possibly have a clue how to read a full concerto score.  You also only mentioned it when I suggested you take one of our composer's scores and "translate."  We have a few pros around here.  Then all of the sudden all this dependency on scoring... which it's obvious you don't understand by your misuse of basic terminology.  I could buy the psychic bit... but you couldn't magically understand standard orchestral notation...

next time be sure to include that part of it in the original description...you will last longer.

posting MS mvmt 1-- that was brilliant!  it's freakin always MS.  Wannabees always think the "magic" is in the scoring... that threw me, too.


BRAVO!!!  thanks for a great time...

[thejeev]

I have experience... training and an understanding of music theory, notation, form & analysis, part-writing, composition, and host of other terms and concepts you do not even know exist... as do many others here.  

Then USE this to confront my analysis. You haven't made one argument that is based on analysis of actual music, you kept trying to simply descredit me. At least I posted actual analysis.

YOU have an opinion... lol.  that your brain is infallible and your fantasy is truth...if in fact you were ever serious.

My brain isn't infallible. In fact, I admitted when I was wrong: the boat thing, and some of my "translations" from the Liszt piece were actually off. Other than that, everything I said stands, and these "musical" experts, are free to undermine my analysis using ACTUAL analysis that I am not "capable" of.


may I congratulate you jeeves on one of the best trolling threads I have ever seen in 10 years of being a member on PS.   Seriously...

the music I could actually visualize... but when you started talking about how you are dependent on the "mind-blowing" markings of only meticulous composers....  that was never part of your original description.   You described your experience in detail when you first posted.... you presented yourself as someone who "never studied music" whose mind all of the sudden started "hearing" things differently.   How are you able to decipher full orchestral scores when you are barely able to plug through Moonlight Sonata...   refer to your "musical expert" thread... post #1.

I'm sorry for not maintaining a fantastical claim that you expect me to. No I can't interpret all music, and I espacially can't interpret music lacking expression, as you can't narrow down something far enough unless it has explicit and specific use of expression. I can read full orchestra scores just fine. The difference is, you might see notes, time signatures, articulation etc. I don't see that, my brain doesn't operate on that front when considering music. I'm immediately thinking "what is one trying to accomplish by writing like this?" Please understand my perspective: our standard music "notation" methods are based on a strict, mathematical framework. Language is as well, but not nearly to the same extent. The non-mathematical components, such as expression, emphasis etc. These are all parts of the human experience. The "music notation" and "human experiencce" mediums are not cross-compatible, composers must use "tactics" to bring ideas to life within a "mathematical" framework. I'll maintain: romantic composers were MASTERS at taking this "human experience" and transcribing into a musical medium. That's how I see romantic, and indeed much of music, but not all.

  You may know a little bit about piano from playing it.. but you couldn't possibly have a clue how to read a full concerto score.  You also only mentioned it when I suggested you take one of our composer's scores and "translate."  We have a few pros around here.  Then all of the sudden all this dependency on scoring... which it's obvious you don't understand by your misuse of basic terminology.  I could buy the psychic bit... but you couldn't magically understand standard orchestral notation...

I'm sorry but you're assuming something, that actually happens to be false. I can't sight read at the piano, this I admit, as this just simply requires practice and repetition (and math skills, which was my top subject) but I can sure as hell read a damn score. Isn't this the first lesson they teach in class? Of course, they'll teach it from a theoretical perspective, which actually has very little to do with what I'm doing. I'm not here to talk about theory of music, I'm here to talk about theory of mind through music.

next time be sure to include that part of it in the original description...you will last longer.

posting MS mvmt 1-- that was brilliant!  it's freakin always MS.  Wannabees always think the "magic" is in the scoring... that threw me, too.

This weekend I'll have some beefier stuff for you, I hope you like blaw blaw. Care to take up the cadenza and use your 47 years experience to silence me once and for all?

BRAVO!!!  thanks for a great time...

I've only just begun!

[perfect_pitch]

I could buy the psychic bit...