Unpopular Opinions

[ranjit]

I win!

Not yet 

[j_tour]

Not yet 

Well, well.

What we got here is, failure to communicate!

Ain't that right!

Choose sides wisely, boy:  for this is the thread of unpopular opinions!

(Yes, I am kidding:  I admire your enthusiasm and your having shared so many of your own recordings.  I'm just a mean old bastard who seldom bothers to make my own recordings).

[j_tour]

I think these days this is an unpopular opinon.

Latin in reconstructed pronunciation is the universal language.  With some exceptions for the vulgar Italianate pronunciation and that hideous British fashion of butchering the language of Latin.

Instead of English, French should be the second backup language. 

[klavieronin]

I'd be more in favour of something like Lojban being the universal language. There are at least two advantages I can think of with Lojban: 1. It is (supposedly) culturally neutral, which means nobody would have any particular advantage or disadvantage in learning the language; and 2. It is made to be machine parsable, which I imaging would make automatic translations much easier, and would also help make interacting with AIs more effective.

[j_tour]

"Machine parsable"?

Yeah, that's good, but why not just use Church's Lambda calculus?

Classical Latin is culturally relevant to all who are interested in Western culture, it is fairly regular, and admits compound words and neologisms or words borrowed from Greek very readily.

Go ahead, tell me how Esperanto is good next! 

 

[klavieronin]

Classical Latin is culturally relevant to all who are interested in Western culture…

Well, if you insist on an ancient language then my vote goes to Classical Sanskrit. Versatile, beautiful, and arguably more relevant to a greater number of people than Latin is (given that most of the worlds population is from the east, not the west).

[j_tour]

Well, if you insist on an ancient language then my vote goes to Classical Sanskrit. Versatile, beautiful, and arguably more relevant to a greater number of people than Latin is (given that most of the worlds population is from the east, not the west).

Point taken.  I don't know any Sanskrit, except from occasional references in Indo-European languages.

What about for a challenge, one of the Finno-Ugric languages?  Nothing to do with Indo-European protolanguage, except for many, many, borrowed words, and both in equal measures precise and infuriariting as used in the colloquial.

Something like Amharic would work, although the orthography and culture is likely a bit strange to Westerners.

No.  I stick with Latin.  History, morphology is locked down, with only a relatively few odd constructions.  Mirabile dictu. 

But at least we agree that French should be the "backup" universal language, which is obviously true.

The thread can be closed now, for I have spoken.

[klavieronin]

Okay well, I'm up for the challenge. It would be nice to catch up with Caecilius and family.

[j_tour]

Mitä vittua!

[klavieronin]

Mita vittuu!

Caecilius was a character in my high school Latin text book.

https://assets.cambridge.org/97811076/90639/excerpt/9781107690639_excerpt.pdf

[imnotapianist]

1. butterflies are scary
2. If you can play a piece slowly, you can play it quickly
2.5 . Johann Strauss doesn't exist
2.75 . authentic sound guy is basically a reincarnation tekashi sixnine in classical form
2.875 . Brendan Kavanagh is a reptilian
3. Russell Westbrook will be traded for Chris paul mid-season to complete banana-boat
4. Matthew Stafford will win MVP under Mcvay, who will bring the rams to their first championship

[nightwindsonata]

1. butterflies are scary
2. If you can play a piece slowly, you can play it quickly
2.5 . Johann Strauss doesn't exist
2.75 . authentic sound guy is basically a reincarnation tekashi sixnine in classical form
2.875 . Brendan Kavanagh is a reptilian
3. Russell Westbrook will be traded for Chris paul mid-season to complete banana-boat
4. Matthew Stafford will win MVP under Mcvay, who will bring the rams to their first championship

my you are a sacrilegious one

[lelle]

2. If you can play a piece slowly, you can play it quickly

Not true and that's easy to verify. Any random person who has played for fun for a few years could play something like Chopin Op 10 no 2 if they play slowly enough, but they certainly couldn't play it at Chopin's indicated tempo of 144 bpm.

[j_tour]

Moths are nasty creatures, but they are satisfying to kill.

Butterflies are just fine.

That is all.

[ranjit]

Not true and that's easy to verify. Any random person who has played for fun for a few years could play something like Chopin Op 10 no 2 if they play slowly enough, but they certainly couldn't play it at Chopin's indicated tempo of 144 bpm.

Well you're posting a popular opinion, aren't you?

[lostinidlewonder]

Intrinsic technique destroys parroted technique yet so many people attempt to parrot without naturally coming to conclusions.

[lelle]

Intrinsic technique destroys parroted technique yet so many people attempt to parrot without naturally coming to conclusions.

What do you mean with intrinsic technique? I kind of read that as the technique you were born with/instinctively picked up on your own, but since that technique often is far from optimal for most people I have a feeling that's not what you mean.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes, the technique you are naturally able to produce. From doing something not completely correct you can move towards doing it more correct and from years of doing that you move towards mastery. It is better to do it in a natural progression rather than merely copy pasting ideas of mastery, or mimicing ideas without coming to those conclusions utterly yourself. A huge amount of people don't do this, they interlectualize technique rather than come across it with much experimentation. Of course I cannot describe exactly the process of intrinsic piano technique development unless we have a given individual to study but I don't think its necessary to make the point at least.

[brogers70]

Yes, the technique you are naturally able to produce. From doing something not completely correct you can move towards doing it more correct and from years of doing that you move towards mastery. It is better to do it in a natural progression rather than merely copy pasting ideas of mastery, or mimicing ideas without coming to those conclusions utterly yourself. A huge amount of people don't do this, they interlectualize technique rather than come across it with much experimentation. Of course I cannot describe exactly the process of intrinsic piano technique development unless we have a given individual to study but I don't think its necessary to make the point at least.

I agree. And the hard thing is what to do when someone shows you a technique that feels uncomfortable and unnatural. It might be that you need to work with it a while for it to feel right, and that it's key to unlocking some problem you've been having. Or it might simply not be compatible with the natural technique that you can develop. As a student you need to gradually get a feeling for what is uncomfortable because it's new and maybe in conflict with a bad habit and what is uncomfortable because it's really not going to work for you. Obviously if you could get a great technique without doing new things that, at least temporarily, feel unnatural you wouldn't need a teacher and you'd be very unusual, but also you have to develop some trust in your own ability to figure out what is uncomfortable in a good and productive way and what's just plain uncomfortable and not suited to you. With more experience it gets easier to sort that out, but it's not automatic.

[lostinidlewonder]

I agree. And the hard thing is what to do when someone shows you a technique that feels uncomfortable and unnatural. It might be that you need to work with it a while for it to feel right, and that it's key to unlocking some problem you've been having.

As a piano teacher I come across people with a large spectrum of technical capability. We have to prioritize what is the most important corrections to encourage rather than ask them to make a complete change to mimic mastery. I allow my students to play with poor technique but aim to improve the most problematic issues. Often you find once these most problematic issues are corrected the student has more room to then experiment as to what the best solution for them becomes because they feel something different to what they were doing before and it feels better.

Or it might simply not be compatible with the natural technique that you can develop. As a student you need to gradually get a feeling for what is uncomfortable because it's new and maybe in conflict with a bad habit and what is uncomfortable because it's really not going to work for you.

Everyone needs to play the piano inefficiently so that when they determine a better way it is naturally obvious to them. I have seen piano teacher take beginners hands and force them into correct postures from the get go. It reminds me of my first piano teacher who would force me to do graceful floaty type movements with my hand just for visual aesthetics but to me it was just ridiculous and even till today I don't do such things.

So we can't force our students hands into how we think it should look like, they need to understand their own two hands and walk the technical tightrope of varying width (the thinnest ropes being high level mastery) and whist doing so improving their aproach over time as they naturally understand better ways when aligned in the correct direction and that thus narrows the technical rope. This is difficult to do on your own but certainly possible if you have an experimental type mind.

Autodidactics will have many different tools they use to come to conclusions, being one myself since I am predominantly a self taught pianist who rarely followed my teachers instructions directly, I noticed the best teachers for me didn't force me into "a way" but merely aligned my thoughts and opened my vision to a certain direction which allowed me to further explore ideas I didn't know I didn't know. It seems to me that all my higher level students think in this manner strongly and I encourage the developing ones to strive to think in this way and they do so with many degrees of success.

I really enjoy a student coming to a lesson wanting to show me a solution they determined themselves, even if it is not the best solution its great to see them try to puzzle it out themselves and they should be fully encouraged and commended, it makes any correctives in lessons much more interesting since it can be compared with their own ideas and they can come to conclusions as to why one is better than the other, there may be a battle and debate as it which is better, all very instructive making learning the piano very dynamic, at least for me and those with investigative minds.

Obviously if you could get a great technique without doing new things that, at least temporarily, feel unnatural you wouldn't need a teacher and you'd be very unusual, but also you have to develop some trust in your own ability to figure out what is uncomfortable in a good and productive way and what's just plain uncomfortable and not suited to you. With more experience it gets easier to sort that out, but it's not automatic.

I started learning piano at 3 and the way I played the piano changed a great deal over each year. Even till today every year I play somewhat differently to the previous year, the changes are less large as I'm getting older but still there are changes which are easily noticeable still. I think all fledgling pianists need to appreciate how they are playing will change over time so it is no good to try to mimic mastery because you need to develop with your technique in a natural instrinsic manner over many years.

Yes there are traps and pitfalls, not many people can go through piano technique totally insulated within their own world, you need outside influences to attach you to ideas you don't know about. It is difficult to judge what ideas you don't know about are worthy or how to prioritize investigating new ideas, because of this good ideas might be missed for many years. Ultimately it doens't matter if you miss anything so long you are progressing in some manner and not floundering on the same ideas for extended periods. Everyone has holes in their journey, there is always a time to patch those up.

[lelle]

Yes, the technique you are naturally able to produce. From doing something not completely correct you can move towards doing it more correct and from years of doing that you move towards mastery. It is better to do it in a natural progression rather than merely copy pasting ideas of mastery, or mimicing ideas without coming to those conclusions utterly yourself. A huge amount of people don't do this, they interlectualize technique rather than come across it with much experimentation. Of course I cannot describe exactly the process of intrinsic piano technique development unless we have a given individual to study but I don't think its necessary to make the point at least.

Ah that makes sense. But I guess the "Intrinsic technique destroys parroted technique" statement comes with some conditions. My intrinsic technique now is much worse than Evgeny Kissin's intrinsic technique, for example. But I think there may be some value to arriving at your personal technique through persistence and experimentation. The problem is just that this road can be so much longer than if you are properly taught and are given a shorter road by a teacher. And it can be dangerous, if you are careless.

[lostinidlewonder]

But I guess the "Intrinsic technique destroys parroted technique" statement comes with some conditions. My intrinsic technique now is much worse than Evgeny Kissin's intrinsic technique, for example.

I don't think comparing ones ability to someone else really reveals anything at all. The intrinsic technique someone experiences vs parroted is their own experience but all will realize within their own bounds that natural technique is much more flexible and applicable compared to some parroted ideology.

But I think there may be some value to arriving at your personal technique through persistence and experimentation. The problem is just that this road can be so much longer than if you are properly taught and are given a shorter road by a teacher. And it can be dangerous, if you are careless.

Parroting technique is dangerous and disabling since you may not understand its application to future context and always require a teacher to moderate what you are doing. Experimentation is something everyone needs to do throughout their musical journey. A good teacher may align a student in the correct direction and help them avoid paths that are no good but not force them completely into an ideology of mastery without them intrinsically undestanding it. One must come from doing something not totally correct to fully understand an improvement, we don't just jump to mastery and ignore all else, that may actually stunt ones progress a great deal. We don't teach incorrect technique but we form incorrect technique into something more appropriate. Moulding technique over time creates an intrinsic understanding of the solution which is highly flexible and can be used in future situations with freedom of thought. Parroting and following directions doesn't allow you to be as flexible and encourages the ideology that future newly aquired technique needs to be learned through mimcry rather than discovery over time. I don't think it takes longer to acquire strong technique through a moulding type progress over time since you have a stronger technique overall compared to ones that merely parrot.

[lelle]

Parroting technique is dangerous and disabling since you may not understand its application to future context and always require a teacher to moderate what you are doing. Experimentation is something everyone needs to do throughout their musical journey. A good teacher may align a student in the correct direction and help them avoid paths that are no good but not force them completely into an ideology of mastery without them intrinsically undestanding it. One must come from doing something not totally correct to fully understand an improvement, we don't just jump to mastery and ignore all else, that may actually stunt ones progress a great deal. We don't teach incorrect technique but we form incorrect technique into something more appropriate. Moulding technique over time creates an intrinsic understanding of the solution which is highly flexible and can be used in future situations with freedom of thought. Parroting and following directions doesn't allow you to be as flexible and encourages the ideology that future newly aquired technique needs to be learned through mimcry rather than discovery over time. I don't think it takes longer to acquire strong technique through a moulding type progress over time since you have a stronger technique overall compared to ones that merely parrot.

That makes sense. My technique is far from fabulous but I feel like I agree with this based on my experience. I shall return in 20 years when I have played some more and perhaps taught some and report back if I still agree

[kenbakermn]

Most recorded versions of Scriabin's Etude Op 8 No 12 make it sound like big wooden boxes tumbling down a hill. When Horowitz played it he did those repeating chord in the second half so fast it just sounds like chattering. It reminds me of one of those Halloween skulls with the chattering jaw. If you dial it back just a bit it can still have plenty of power but sounds much more musical.

Most recorded versions of Satie's Gymnopedies are too too slow. They make me feel like sitting on a sofa with the shades drawn and heaving a heavy sigh. But if you pick up the tempo and dynamics just a bit they are transformed into something still reserved but also lively.

Bach and Mozart wrote some great tunes but I've heard about as much of their music as I need to in one lifetime.

Scott Joplin should be on concert programs occasionally, but don't play it like you just finished your fourth double espresso. Relax and let the melodies sing a bit.

I like some of Debussy's tunes, Clare di Lune, Arabesque, Reverie, e.g., but I'll never learn how to play any of that. The stuff is so sweet I can take only a few hearings, not enough to learn them.

Hanon is basically a hostage-taking situation.

[anacrusis]

Most recorded versions of Scriabin's Etude Op 8 No 12 make it sound like big wooden boxes tumbling down a hill. When Horowitz played it he did those repeating chord in the second half so fast it just sounds like chattering. It reminds me of one of those Halloween skulls with the chattering jaw. If you dial it back just a bit it can still have plenty of power but sounds much more musical.

Noooo Horowitz version is awesome  No recording can compare to this live version:

[klavieronin]

Noooo Horowitz version is awesome  No recording can compare to this live version:

Also my favourite version!

[kenbakermn]

Well, yeah, I guess the Horowitz isn't terrible. A lot of power in the beginning, and I like the delicacy he brings to the middle section, and a nice finish. All right, grudgingly, I don't hate it. Really my only objection is I wish he would have dialed back the repeating triplet chords just a bit, make it sound driving and high-energy but not spastic.

[lelle]

That recording is just fabulous, no interpretation beats it.

[lettersquash]

Hanon is basically a hostage-taking situation.

:lol:

Bach and Mozart wrote some great tunes but I've heard about as much of their music as I need to in one lifetime.

Bach and that other one you mentioned should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

[lelle]

:lol:Bach and that other one you mentioned should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

What's wrong with poor old Wolfie?

[lettersquash]

What's wrong with poor old Wolfie?

He's like a bad AI composition app sent back through time. He was created by God to drive people out of elevators onto a shop floor, and people on hold to give up trying to get through on the phone and write a letter instead. I'd not be too surprised if they dug him up and found a key in the middle of his back. I thought I must be very peculiar until I saw Glenn Gould's talk on the subject (although criticising mainly his "later works", he thought he was not a very good composer).

&t=106s

[gipsypiano]

I dont like most of germanic and similar classical music.
Its really dead compared to the fire in some of the music of traditional eastern or southern european music and music frome elsewhere.
The composers often had lost any contact to the real magic energy of ancient music and of the music in nature and life itself.
They had often lost the knowledge that good music is either extatic, meditative or euphoric in a good way or for firey dances and healing passion.
Almost all european classic music has the dead beat rhythm of machines, too much influence by early capitalist, industrialist, mechanical machine worshipping rich people that lost any contact with magic people living an intense, free life like gypsies for example.
Theres no mechanic machine rhythms in nature- the infinitely strong beats in nature are all rubati. Volcanoes, storms, solar eruptions, waves are the most rubati and the strongest things in the world and machines are nothing compared to that- not the strongest machine of the world could survive the rubati of a volcanic eruption for example.
Early capitalist/industrialised mechanic, intellectual and often psychologically depressing/ill/sick music does mostly not heal or extatic but just makes sick.
Certainly, most known composers had some good moments where even their dead mechanic rhythm music sounds like something a bit alive but in most of the cases its nothing compared to the magic fire in gipsy music for example.
And worse, many of the celebrated composers were no people to get too involved with cause some of them were more or less bad people in private life and worse, did stuff for money too much and had a sick sexual life instead of healing, respectful erotic life.
So I dont think that boring, overintellectualized, mechanical and often sick music is so interesting or healthy to get too involved into.
Anyways, you just have to liberate your own creativity and then I am sure most of you can do a much better job in writing music than most of what the celebrated composers produced for money or whatever bad reasons.
If you want to be overintellectual, you can get even this done in beautiful magic music or do other things like creative writing, painting, sculpture, architecture, gardening and other stuff that makes your music much richer.

have a nice day

[lettersquash]

I dont like most of germanic and similar classical music.
Its really dead compared to the fire in some of the music of traditional eastern or southern european music and music frome elsewhere.
The composers often had lost any contact to the real magic energy of ancient music and of the music in nature and life itself.
They had often lost the knowledge that good music is either extatic, meditative or euphoric in a good way or for firey dances and healing passion.
Almost all european classic music has the dead beat rhythm of machines, too much influence by early capitalist, industrialist, mechanical machine worshipping rich people that lost any contact with magic people living an intense, free life like gypsies for example.
Theres no mechanic machine rhythms in nature- the infinitely strong beats in nature are all rubati. Volcanoes, storms, solar eruptions, waves are the most rubati and the strongest things in the world and machines are nothing compared to that- not the strongest machine of the world could survive the rubati of a volcanic eruption for example.
Early capitalist/industrialised mechanic, intellectual and often psychologically depressing/ill/sick music does mostly not heal or extatic but just makes sick.
Certainly, most known composers had some good moments where even their dead mechanic rhythm music sounds like something a bit alive but in most of the cases its nothing compared to the magic fire in gipsy music for example.
And worse, many of the celebrated composers were no people to get too involved with cause some of them were more or less bad people in private life and worse, did stuff for money too much and had a sick sexual life instead of healing, respectful erotic life.
So I dont think that boring, overintellectualized, mechanical and often sick music is so interesting or healthy to get too involved into.
Anyways, you just have to liberate your own creativity and then I am sure most of you can do a much better job in writing music than most of what the celebrated composers produced for money or whatever bad reasons.
If you want to be overintellectual, you can get even this done in beautiful magic music or do other things like creative writing, painting, sculpture, architecture, gardening and other stuff that makes your music much richer.

have a nice day

It's interesting how we get these preferences, isn't it? This is a bit like I feel about Mozart, but it's because his music is much too formulaic. Virtually all the chord progressions are hackneyed, done to death, and he's done them all hundreds of times before.

But I don't feel the same about the whole genre. I'm passionate about the musical forms of J S Bach, who does sometimes recycle harmonic forms, but more often he seems to be endlessly exploring, re-hashing, tweaking, trying to surprise the listener. It would also be hard to imagine a composer who was more genuinely pious, studious and long-suffering. His music expresses extasy, meditation and euphoria in abundance, along with the deepest sorrow, yearning, hope and patience.

I was surprised to hear your view of such a wide genre, particularly about the mechanical style of it. Rubati? I'm not sure I quite understand. Eastern, gypsy music, like virtually all traditional music, includes the clear, sharp beats of drums and other percussive instruments, played (by the most skilled) accurately on the beats, for the sake of exciting the listener, who might also be a dancer. How can you dance well and enjoyably if the rhythm isn't precise? And if a beat is precise, isn't it, in a sense, "mechanical", or indistinguishable from beats made by machines?

Much "germanic and similar classical music" - including much of Bach's work - was actual dance forms. We don't do those dances, on the whole, anymore, so we forget. Some are joyful or frantic; some are stately; some are delicate.

No criticism - at the end of the day, opinions are just what they are, and who knows where they come from? Loads of people love Mozart, for reasons I'll probably never understand!

[gipsypiano]

It's interesting how we get these preferences, isn't it? This is a bit like I feel about Mozart, but it's because his music is much too formulaic. Virtually all the chord progressions are hackneyed, done to death, and he's done them all hundreds of times before.

But I don't feel the same about the whole genre. I'm passionate about the musical forms of J S Bach, who does sometimes recycle harmonic forms, but more often he seems to be endlessly exploring, re-hashing, tweaking, trying to surprise the listener. It would also be hard to imagine a composer who was more genuinely pious, studious and long-suffering. His music expresses extasy, meditation and euphoria in abundance, along with the deepest sorrow, yearning, hope and patience.

I was surprised to hear your view of such a wide genre, particularly about the mechanical style of it. Rubati? I'm not sure I quite understand. Eastern, gypsy music, like virtually all traditional music, includes the clear, sharp beats of drums and other percussive instruments, played (by the most skilled) accurately on the beats, for the sake of exciting the listener, who might also be a dancer. How can you dance well and enjoyably if the rhythm isn't precise? And if a beat is precise, isn't it, in a sense, "mechanical", or indistinguishable from beats made by machines?

Much "germanic and similar classical music" - including much of Bach's work - was actual dance forms. We don't do those dances, on the whole, anymore, so we forget. Some are joyful or frantic; some are stately; some are delicate.

No criticism - at the end of the day, opinions are just what they are, and who knows where they come from? Loads of people love Mozart, for reasons I'll probably never understand!

hello, I love dancing to music with a living non mechanical beat.
The gipsy music I listen to, all has breathing, living beat. As well as infinite details between two notes of music where our classical music has nothing to say.
The gipsy music I love, has whole worlds hidden between two notes where a piano player can do nothing.
Singing birds and frogs in nature ar the absolute masters of creating the most hallucinating rhythm structures in several dimensions out of a landscape, even cows do that as I know and I love listening to the cow bell blues in warm summer nights. Cicadea are the best drummers of the world its absolutely mindblowing what gigantic structures of beats they build around us in warm summer nights.
The ocean waves are also such an incredible structure in several dimensions, overwhelming and breathtaking. Thats the stuff that kicks off my creativity but a metronome is just a creativity killer and a dead stupid thing like music of people who make themselyes slaves of such a tiny, dead thing instead of taking off with breathing, magic beats of life itself.
All these infinitely mighty and magic natural rhythms are not exact and precise metronom like but theyre in music as important as the rest of music.
Heartbeat is the backbone of music- not a dead, precise machine.

[lettersquash]

Hi, yes, I was going to mention the heartbeat, but still slanted towards my earlier thesis - precise drumming, etc., as trance-inducing and pulse-rate training in meditative religious practices from early prehistory (so not mechanical or capitalist). But I'm beginning to hear you. You make good points. I could just as easily slant any of my ideas in the other direction, towards the imperfection (in the sense of metronomic perfection), the beat frequencies and harmonics, complexity and that sense of unique-moment improvisation, never to be repeated, that is so powerful. I'd like to hear some of your favourite gipsy music, so I can understand more about this. Would you post some links or video please? Do you like klezma? Cheers.

[brogers70]

I dont like most of germanic and similar classical music.
Its really dead compared to the fire in some of the music of traditional eastern or southern european music and music frome elsewhere.
The composers often had lost any contact to the real magic energy of ancient music and of the music in nature and life itself.
They had often lost the knowledge that good music is either extatic, meditative or euphoric in a good way or for firey dances and healing passion.
Almost all european classic music has the dead beat rhythm of machines, too much influence by early capitalist, industrialist, mechanical machine worshipping rich people that lost any contact with magic people living an intense, free life like gypsies for example.
Theres no mechanic machine rhythms in nature- the infinitely strong beats in nature are all rubati. Volcanoes, storms, solar eruptions, waves are the most rubati and the strongest things in the world and machines are nothing compared to that- not the strongest machine of the world could survive the rubati of a volcanic eruption for example.
Early capitalist/industrialised mechanic, intellectual and often psychologically depressing/ill/sick music does mostly not heal or extatic but just makes sick.
Certainly, most known composers had some good moments where even their dead mechanic rhythm music sounds like something a bit alive but in most of the cases its nothing compared to the magic fire in gipsy music for example.
And worse, many of the celebrated composers were no people to get too involved with cause some of them were more or less bad people in private life and worse, did stuff for money too much and had a sick sexual life instead of healing, respectful erotic life.
So I dont think that boring, overintellectualized, mechanical and often sick music is so interesting or healthy to get too involved into.
Anyways, you just have to liberate your own creativity and then I am sure most of you can do a much better job in writing music than most of what the celebrated composers produced for money or whatever bad reasons.
If you want to be overintellectual, you can get even this done in beautiful magic music or do other things like creative writing, painting, sculpture, architecture, gardening and other stuff that makes your music much richer.

have a nice day

I think I understand and appreciate what you like about music. Personally I wouldn't define the things I like so much by invoking the things I don't like, but to each his own.

[gipsypiano]

Hi, yes, I was going to mention the heartbeat, but still slanted towards my earlier thesis - precise drumming, etc., as trance-inducing and pulse-rate training in meditative religious practices from early prehistory (so not mechanical or capitalist). But I'm beginning to hear you. You make good points. I could just as easily slant any of my ideas in the other direction, towards the imperfection (in the sense of metronomic perfection), the beat frequencies and harmonics, complexity and that sense of unique-moment improvisation, never to be repeated, that is so powerful. I'd like to hear some of your favourite gipsy music, so I can understand more about this. Would you post some links or video please? Do you like klezma? Cheers.

Hello and yes, I love klezmer:)

you like rubati?

pizzica

&index=30

this boy shows you how to do

&index=46

Bulgaria

&index=8

africa

&index=20

beat

&index=22

azerbeijan

&index=86

Taraf

&index=5

Most magic gipsy music: ROMANYI ROTA

ANDO DROM

&t=4s

enough life energy in all this music to save more than the whole planet...if people would just listen

[lettersquash]

Thanks, gipsypiano. I thought you'd like klezmer! Very interesting selection. I particularly liked the djembe - the bunch of little kids playing empty plastic bottles are just amazing! I think a lot of our musical taste comes from what we hear in childhood, and I think I'd probably need a different childhood to appreciate some of the gipsy music.

[bwl_13]

Had a lot of fun reading through all these interesting takes. I agree with some (more than expected) but disagree with a few too. I find it weird how a piano forum has people that think Chopin "sucks". Even if you don't like his music he devoted all his compositions to our instrument and inspires thousands of pianists every day.

Here's my unpopular opinion:
The Mozart piano sonatas have only a few highlights, and everything else is pretty much formulaic meandering. Even the strongest Mozart sonatas only just barely match up to the weakest Beethoven sonatas.

*Note* I'm speaking as though this is objective. Obviously this is my opinion, but I've never understood Mozart's appeal, especially with his piano music.

[lettersquash]

Had a lot of fun reading through all these interesting takes. I agree with some (more than expected) but disagree with a few too. I find it weird how a piano forum has people that think Chopin "sucks". Even if you don't like his music he devoted all his compositions to our instrument and inspires thousands of pianists every day.

It's taken me some time to begin to appreciate some of his music, apart from Prelude in E minor, Opus 28:4, which I always loved.

Here's my unpopular opinion:
The Mozart piano sonatas have only a few highlights, and everything else is pretty much formulaic meandering. Even the strongest Mozart sonatas only just barely match up to the weakest Beethoven sonatas.

*Note* I'm speaking as though this is objective. Obviously this is my opinion, but I've never understood Mozart's appeal, especially with his piano music.

That is objectively true.

Seriously, if any Mozart lovers want to name something or post a link to something I should listen to to change my mind, I'd be interested.

[bwl_13]

It's taken me some time to begin to appreciate some of his music, apart from Prelude in E minor, Opus 28:4, which I always loved.
That is objectively true.

Seriously, if any Mozart lovers want to name something or post a link to something I should listen to to change my mind, I'd be interested.

LOL I've never understood Mozart's appeal. He's an impressive composer in terms of his intuitive working style but it sort of shows in his compositions that it only took him howevermany days to write...

[brogers70]

LOL I've never understood Mozart's appeal. He's an impressive composer in terms of his intuitive working style but it sort of shows in his compositions that it only took him howevermany days to write...

I took a very long time (50+ years) to come round to liking Mozart (except I always loved the Jupiter Symphony). I think the piano concertos are easier to love than the sonatas, but lately even the sonatas have been growing on me.

[lettersquash]

I took a very long time (50+ years) to come round to liking Mozart (except I always loved the Jupiter Symphony). I think the piano concertos are easier to love than the sonatas, but lately even the sonatas have been growing on me.

I gave the Jupiter a try just now. 50+ years? I'll report back again when I get to 110.

[virginofthepiano]

Bring back piano duals

[lelle]

Bring back piano duals

What are piano duals?

[dogperson]

What are piano duals?

It is spelled ‘duels’, a pre-arranged formal combat.   In the old west, guns might have been involved.
The famous piano duel was between Liszt and Thalberg 

Link deleted due to errors in article.  Please see post by Ronde

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The famous piano duel was between Liszt and Thalberg

https://interlude.hk/franz-liszt-versus-sigismond-thalberg/

That article is colourful but not very accurate. Liszt didn't play the Benediction de dieu, not least because he didn't write it until the mid 1840s. (I assume this misconception might be a result of the piece appearing on the CD Liszt v Thalberg, by Steven Mayer.) Likewise, he didn't play the fantasy on Robert le Diable at the duel as he hadn't yet written it either. Liszt's pieces were the Weber Konzertstuck solo transcription and the Fantasy on Niobe, while Thalberg played his fantasies on God save the King and Moses in Egypt.

I wrote a brief article about Thalberg and the duel here:

https://crosseyedpianist.com/2017/12/09/sigismund-thalberg-forgotten-master/

[dogperson]

Thanks so much, Andrew, for the corrected information and the link

[dogperson]

Duplicate post

[virginofthepiano]

That article is colourful but not very accurate. Liszt didn't play the Benediction de dieu, not least because he didn't write it until the mid 1840s. (I assume this misconception might be a result of the piece appearing on the CD Liszt v Thalberg, by Steven Mayer.) Likewise, he didn't play the fantasy on Robert le Diable at the duel as he hadn't yet written it either.

Maybe he play it just didn't write it yet