Quasi Una Fantasia Movement I L.V.B.

[thejeev]

that's why I know you are full of baloney.  I have been playing for 47 years... gimmie just a little credit Maestro.

You played 47 years and just told me that's it's no easier to discern a musical message just because it has expression? Really? Did I misinterpret what you said? Care to clarify, or defend that position? If that is your position, it's wrong.

I'll tell you that, if Rach didn't mark his gminor prelude with articulation and dynamics, I truly would have absolutely no idea what he's saying. The expression makes the music, not the other way around, you may be thinking backwards.

Now having said that, sometimes lack of expression is intended, but why would I waste my time decideding what somebody is... not saying?

[dcstudio]

You played 47 years and just told me that's it's no easier to discern a musical message just because it has expression? Really? Did I misinterpret what you said? Care to clarify, or defend that position? If that is your position, it's wrong.

no you don't understand...lol...  which is why I am not going to take the time to explain...because you don't have enough info to comprehend it.

like I said... gimmie just a little credit here... I am who I say I am... I don't hide behind an account name...and you have no idea what you are talking about.  My experience in this field gives me a pretty strong bullsh!t meter.  I gave you the rope and watched you hang yourself with it...lol.   take my advice and quit while you are ahead psychic boy. lol

[thejeev]

no you don't understand...lol...  which is why I am not going to take the time to explain...because you don't have enough info to comprehend it.

like I said... gimmie just a little credit here... I am who I say I am... I don't hide behind an account name...and you have no idea what you are talking about.  My experience in this field gives me a pretty strong bullsh!t meter.  I gave you the rope and watched you hang yourself with it...lol.   take my advice and quit while you are ahead psychic boy. lol

Come on, really? You make a statement and don't back it up with your "expertise", you just say you're right because 47 years and I'm wrong because "psychic". Not to take away from your "experience" in any way, but if you want to keep referring to it, employ it, and prove me wrong. Shut me up.

I think you fell into a bit of a trap here. If I understood you correctly (and I ask again to correct me if I'm wrong), you just told me, expressive tools doesn't make music more expressive? Of course you didn't explain yourself so that's my best guess. I want to see one person come on here and agree with the above, and you, on this point so I know what kind of people I'm actually dealing with here.

Don't mean to sound rude but come on, dynamics and articulation, stylistic playing, is what makes romantic music what it is. Not music in general, ROMANTIC music, which is what this is all about.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A few incidental details.

"Quasi una fantasia" doesn't mean almost a fantasy (unless you are using poor, unidiomatic online translators!), it means in the manner of a fantasy or as if a fantasy.

It wasn't dedicated to his girlfriend, it was dedicated to a pupil who unfortunately for Beethoven wasn't his girlfriend.

Regarding the performance itself - the above points may be pedantry, but this is more important. Your rubato is totally excessive and detrimental to the flow of the music. It is similar to someone giving a speech and tailing off almost to a standstill before restarting again. All it achieves is to distress/confuse the ear and the performance (which other than that is reasonable enough) would be greatly improved by a less in your face rubato. The places at which you deploy rubato should also be correlated with points of structural and/or harmonic importance. Sometimes less is more.

Regarding the representational content of music, I don't propose to take part in this debate as I'm afraid I have more important things to do  However I will state my position, which you can take or leave as you will. Equally, if you wish to maintain your position, one which appears to be formed from a starting point of untrained musicianship, that is your prerogative but you will have to accept that you are going to either be not taken seriously or it assumed that it is a peculiar manifestation of trolling, particularly as you appear to be claiming to have a power miraculously present in you but apparently not in other musicians.

To my position - all music is either representational or abstract/non-representational. When music is representational, what it is suggestive of can often be inferred from the score. Composers are usually intelligent, cultured people, often prone to literary allusion in the title (Liszt being a good example), or suggestive dynamic and other instructions. Familiarity with a composer also enables inferences to be drawn from details like key signature (C min in Beethoven = anger, F# maj in Liszt = religious ecstasy). Similarly, familiarity with a composer can lead to further understanding of interpretative details: it is documented that the opening of the Hammerklavier represents "Vivat, vivat Rudolphus"; Beethoven has also placed words in his music when he wishes a specific idea (for example the op.81 sonata). To me, the triplets of the Moonlight are a rowing boat upon the moonlit water, but I am being conditioned by the title Rellstab gave it. Equally Tovey said they were, quoting from Wordsworth, "Rolled round in earth's diurnal course/ With rocks, and stones, and trees." Ultimately, in the absence of clear indications, it means what you want it to mean, and if you perform on stage, just be convincing about it.

[thejeev]

A few incidental details.

"Quasi una fantasia" doesn't mean almost a fantasy (unless you are using poor, unidiomatic online translators!), it means in the manner of a fantasy or as if a fantasy.

This point (which I would jump to contend, as the translation works either way, but I won't because it's not even necessary) has no bearing on my claim whatsoever, the point is, in the context of this piece, almost a fantasy or in the manner of a fantasy, mean the same thing. It's a fantasy he's talking about.

It wasn't dedicated to his girlfriend, it was dedicated to a pupil who unfortunately for Beethoven wasn't his girlfriend.

This is actually correct, I used "girlfriend" loosely here, what I should have said was, it was dedicated to someone Beethoven loved and CLAIMED loved him back, though this is only his own account.

Regarding the performance itself - the above points may be pedantry, but this is more important. Your rubato is totally excessive and detrimental to the flow of the music. It is similar to someone giving a speech and tailing off almost to a standstill before restarting again. All it achieves is to distress/confuse the ear and the performance (which other than that is reasonable enough) would be greatly improved by a less in your face rubato. The places at which you deploy rubato should also be correlated with points of structural and/or harmonic importance. Sometimes less is more.

It was my explicit, explicit intention to "tail off", as a recurring voice in one's head would tail off but resume. Sometimes there are rit. that indicate this is correct, and I played as such, other times I added my own to "enhance" the direction that was already given. I'm glad it sounded confusing to you, because that was my intent. You're imagining a boat, that's why it doesn't work for you. I'm imagining a recurring voice in his head. Because our interpretations are contradictory, mine would appear "broken" to you, but to me, it sounds exactly as intended (how I intended at the time)

Regarding the representational content of music, I don't propose to take part in this debate as I'm afraid I have more important things to do   However I will state my position, which you can take or leave as you will. Equally, if you wish to maintain your position, one which appears to be formed from a starting point of untrained musicianship, that is your prerogative but you will have to accept that you are going to either be not taken seriously or it assumed that it is a peculiar manifestation of trolling, particularly as you appear to be claiming to have a power miraculously present in you but apparently not in other musicians.


To my position - all music is either representational or abstract/non-representational. When music is representational, what it is suggestive of can often be inferred from the score. Composers are usually intelligent, cultured people, often prone to literary allusion in the title (Liszt being a good example), or suggestive dynamic and other instructions. Familiarity with a composer also enables inferences to be drawn from details like key signature (C min in Beethoven = anger, F# maj in Liszt = religious ecstasy). Similarly, familiarity with a composer can lead to further understanding of interpretative details: it is documented that the opening of the Hammerklavier represents "Vivat, vivat Rudolphus"; Beethoven has also placed words in his music when he wishes a specific idea (for example the op.81 sonata). To me, the triplets of the Moonlight are a rowing boat upon the moonlit water, but I am being conditioned by the title Rellstab gave it. Equally Tovey said they were, quoting from Wordsworth, "Rolled round in earth's diurnal course/ With rocks, and stones, and trees." Ultimately, in the absence of clear indications, it means what you want it to mean, and if you perform on stage, just be convincing about it.

I actually agree with this entirely. I'll add, in the PRESENCE of numerous "clear indications", one can progressivley narrow down the essence of a work, even if romantic/personal in nature. This is the crux of my proposition.

I have bolded my reply, thanks for taking the time to listen and share your thoughts.

I feel as though I would have delivered my "vision" of the piece better if I did all 3 movements, as the first movement really is just the beginning of the story. For example, the same theme from I is found in II and III, and I would be one to exploit that fully. I just wanted to present this piece in a different light. Certainly not "moon" light. More of, a gentle yet neurotic calm before the storm that is movement III.

[tenk]

Why is anyone paying attention to this epic troll? I wish I had some popcorn.

Onto the matter of the playing -- the 1st mvmt wasn't the worst rendition I've ever heard. Overuse of rubato (of which a lot of people are guilty) aside, it was actually fairly clean. I would say however that the most glaring fault is that the melody line attack is too harsh. It strikes out from the underlying harmony rather than working with it. Ease on the attack for the melody, bring down volume slightly and allow it to blend a bit more to add color.

That being said, you should have edited out whatever it was you were doing with the 3rd movement. That was an absolute technical and musical disaster.

[thejeev]

Why is anyone paying attention to this epic troll? I wish I had some popcorn.

Onto the matter of the playing -- the 1st mvmt wasn't the worst rendition I've ever heard. Overuse of rubato (of which a lot of people are guilty) aside, it was actually fairly clean. I would say however that the most glaring fault is that the melody line attack is too harsh. It strikes out from the underlying harmony rather than working with it. Ease on the attack for the melody, bring down volume slightly and allow it to blend a bit more to add color.

I see this perspective, I agree it was too harsh in some places, but I am also of the mind that the top voice should pierce above the triplets, but not too much. I take this ciriticism on the chest, but in the context of my "interpretation" of a voice tourmenting the human soul, I am overall happy with it. Sometimes if I accidentally build too early, I know in my mind "yeah this might sound harsh, this section coming up" but it would be stupid to take it down and bring it back up again. You need to finish the phrase properly, even if you went too much too soon. I'd rather something sound "coherent but harsh" than "incoherent but it sort of sounds nice".

That being said, you should have edited out whatever it was you were doing with the 3rd movement. That was an absolute technical and musical disaster.

Now I 100% agree that you probably thought this, but I was demonstrating that there is an intimate relationship between the theme in all 3 movements. Most people don't listen for this, it's since been lost I feel, but in order for it to come out in the 3rd movement, it needs to go really fast, and really agitated. Gould came closest, though his agitato is lacking, his tempo is by far the most accurate to anything I've heard. You heard emphasis where there typically isn't any because I decided to put on a piar that day and apply a really presto "presto agitato". It should sound agitated, not nice and smooth/bouncy like everyone most play it.

Thanks for your feedback.

[themeandvariation]

Gould playing Beethoven… that should bring a few responses

[thejeev]

Gould playing Beethoven… that should bring a few responses

The thing with Gould is, I think he can actually "feel" the voices within music. Of course he is renowned for his Bach, I think the reason is, Bach was all about creating voice. This voice of Bach, let's say, resonated within Gould.

I think he heard the same within Beethoven, played in a way as if it were actually a voice as he did with Bach, but either wasn't sure what to make of it, or applied a "tone" that had nothing to do with with the voice and what it was saying. If you listen to his Chopin you'll know exactly what I mean. I think it's a combination of both. The voice itself, Gould I feel is absolutely correct. However I think he's way off on the tone when it comes to Beethoven.

Imagine you telling a puppy dog (if it could understand you) to roar like a lion. That's Gould playing Beethoven. He makes the right sound, right tempo, right attempted intensity, but there's no real "threat" and it's not convinving, because it doesn't make sense and real humans can't identify with it. But my mind "happens to allow me to" understand that his playing is so everywhere because of this reason. It's for this reason he's a genius when it comes to Bach, but terrible when it comes to later composers.

Now if you took Gould's technical ability and fused it with a performer who can match the passion and tone of Beethoven, you'll be so close to inside in the head of Beethoven himself that when you heard that kind of rendition it wouldn't even be entertaining, it'd be scary. Not only do I think this possible, this is the kind of thing I claim to experience, perhaps in a milder form. When it comes to finding that "voice" and understanding what it's saying, as Gould had, I think my situation is similar (obviously not to the same extent, Gould was a genius), that I can read the music and find the real voice (if there is one), and I am a passionate person who isn't afraid to take an idea and go 100% if I feel it's right, maybe that's why I'm coming across as stubborn, but I know there is something to this. Whatever voice Gould hear when playing the 3rd movement, I hear the exact same voice, exact same tempo, exact same intensity, but ultimately his lack of agitation and "emotion" completely kills it for me. It's like a teenage boy singing death metal, yeah we can that tell this boy is pissed, but we want him to shut up rather than him demand our attention. I can atleast appreciate him nailing the voice, I'd tell him to tell me about it when he gets a set of balls.

[dcstudio]

That being said, you should have edited out whatever it was you were doing with the 3rd movement. That was an absolute technical and musical disaster.

lol.