Unpopular Opinions

[pianistavt]

To me the Romantic composers just elevated late Beethoven to longer forms, greater technical feats, and so on. To me you have to look at the 20th c. to find the same kind of innovation on a fundamental level- Debussy perhaps.

Very well put. Taking it further, later 20th century music did not amount to any real revolution. Like atonality? Incorporation of popular or fold idioms? Big deal.

I suppose that's true in terms of harmony but not true in terms of form and overall concept.  Schubert focused on expression, Beethoven less so - cerebral and elevated to the end imo.  Yet both stayed resolutely in the classical concept.  It wasn't until the likes of Chopin and Liszt that expression was the primary focus, bending form, harmony, melody to its impetus.  I think most music historians consider this a revolution.  I agree another revolution occurred at the turn into the 20th century, the later half or third riding on the same wave.  I don't think another revolution in music is required.  The doors were blast open with the likes of Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and they haven't closed since.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

They should get rid of the Chopin competition and we don’t need another recording/performance of the complete etudes lol

[transitional]

I don't mind the competition being centered around Chopin, but I don't think they should exclusively showcase Chopin. Also, the specific requirements get excessive and some of the Etudes are really starting to bother me.

[sonata_5]

Don’t shoot me but I think Mozart’s chamber music is much better then his solo piano stuff with a few exceptions like k 310 and 457 and 333 ,the adagio in b minor and the rondo in a minor.(Not alla turca.) This is not an unpopular opinion but his piano concerti are his greatest achievements next to opera. And I generally enjoy his violin sonatas more. But I read that piano sonatas we’re not really his priority.

[pianistavt]

I don't mind the competition being centered around Chopin, but I don't think they should exclusively showcase Chopin. Also, the specific requirements get excessive and some of the Etudes are really starting to bother me.

I agree - I think Scriabin at minimum could be included in the Chopin competition - so much of his early music is a continuation of Chopin's ideas.

I over listened to Pollini's recording of the etudes (grand prix due disque!) as a teenager - I can barely tolerate practicing the etudes now, they're too well known.

[thorn]

I agree - I think Scriabin at minimum could be included in the Chopin competition - so much of his early music is a continuation of Chopin's ideas.

While I agree Scriabin and any other composer a) continuing the Chopin tradition, or b) who was influential on Chopin himself could be included, the only composer I believe should be included "at minimum" is Szymanowski, in many ways the second giant of Polish classical music (I have Polish friends who don't give a damn about classical music who know of Szymanowski).

[pianistavt]

While I agree Scriabin and any other composer a) continuing the Chopin tradition, or b) who was influential on Chopin himself could be included, the only composer I believe should be included "at minimum" is Szymanowski, in many ways the second giant of Polish classical music (I have Polish friends who don't give a damn about classical music who know of Szymanowski).

Yes, I think having Szymanowski, another polish composer, would appeal to the Competition board on a couple levels - national pride, for one; not sure it fits stylistically as well as Scriabin.  Too bad Lutoslawski didn't compose more solo piano music... it could become the Polish Composers Competition.

[thorn]

Yes, I think having another polish composer would appeal to the competition board on one level - national pride, though not sure it fits stylistically as well as Scriabin.  Too bad Lutoslawski didn't right more solo piano music... it could become the competition of Polish Composers Competition.

The style you're thinking of is hardly underrepresented in international piano competitions. Nothing wrong with a shake up!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yes, I think having Szymanowski, another polish composer, would appeal to the Competition board on a couple levels - national pride, for one; not sure it fits stylistically as well as Scriabin.  Too bad Lutoslawski didn't compose more solo piano music... it could become the Polish Composers Competition.

Polish composers competition is a good idea.  Anything to get away from hearing 6 Chopin 1s and 3 Chopin 2s in a row for the finals.

[thorn]

Polish composers competition is a good idea.  Anything to get away from hearing 6 Chopin 1s and 3 Chopin 2s in a row for the finals.

The Szymanowski concerto is better than both of Chopin's (maybe returning to the topic of unpopular opinions, though I know many people feel Chopin's orchestral writing is not on the same level as his piano writing)

[klavieronin]

To me the Romantic composers just elevated late Beethoven to longer forms, greater technical feats, and so on. To me you have to look at the 20th c. to find the same kind of innovation on a fundamental level- Debussy perhaps.

I think Liszt is his later life is an exception to this. He really pushed the boundaries of music more than any other composer of the time and was using techniques 50 years ahead of his time.

[klavieronin]

Scriabin's Piano concerto is better than any of the Rachmaninoff concertos.

(and by "better", I mean I like it more  )

[liszt-and-the-galops]

To me the Romantic composers just elevated late Beethoven to longer forms, greater technical feats, and so on. To me you have to look at the 20th c. to find the same kind of innovation on a fundamental level- Debussy perhaps.

Liszt and Alkan?

Also, on-topic, I think Alkan is the second best composer (behind Liszt), and that he is one of the few "forgotten" pianists of the time (others include Mereaux) who didn't deserve falling into obscurity.

[klavieronin]

I think Alkan is the second best composer (behind Liszt), and that he is one of the few "forgotten" pianists of the time who didn't deserve falling into obscurity.

100% agree but I can understand why it happened. Alkan's music demands deeper listening compared to Chopin's or Mendelssohn's for example. It's not the kind of music that you could expect to have popular appeal but it absolutely deserves to be held up alongside the works of the other great romantic composers.

[thorn]

I think Liszt is his later life is an exception to this. He really pushed the boundaries of music more than any other composer of the time and was using techniques 50 years ahead of his time.

I did say that in a purely pianistic sense Liszt would be the one, idk why you cut that part of my post. I wouldn't put Alkan on the same level though. As I said earlier Liszt was involved with the development of the modern piano, he was an early champion of Beethoven in a period B was less appreciated than now, he is the grandfather of modern music having a significant influence on French and Russian composers as well as less prolific regions like Spain. It's about way more than pure technique. Very few Liszt pieces I'd give as examples of his ahead of the times thinking are among his most technically difficult.

Also adding this isn't about liking/disliking Liszt music either, it's factual achievements of his. I don't really care for Bach (an unpopular opinion in itself) but I'd be an idiot to deny his genius.

[thorn]

Scriabin's Piano concerto is better than any of the Rachmaninoff concertos.

(and by "better", I mean I like it more  )

Likewise Prokofievs concertos! 

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I did say that in a purely pianistic sense Liszt would be the one, idk why you cut that part of my post. I wouldn't put Alkan on the same level though. As I said earlier Liszt was involved with the development of the modern piano, he was an early champion of Beethoven in a period B was less appreciated than now, he is the grandfather of modern music having a significant influence on French and Russian composers as well as less prolific regions like Spain. It's about way more than pure technique. Very few Liszt pieces I'd give as examples of his ahead of the times thinking are among his most technically difficult.

I don't know about you, but I hear very little Beethoven in Liszt's pieces, including his earlier ones.
What I was saying in my post was that Liszt and Alkan didn't base their works off of Beethoven all that much.

[thorn]

I don't know about you, but I hear very little Beethoven in Liszt's pieces, including his earlier ones.
What I was saying in my post was that Liszt and Alkan didn't base their works off of Beethoven all that much.

Liszt didn't try to copy Beethoven, or obsess over him to the exclusion of other influences (Paganini, Berlioz etc) in the same way Scriabin did with Chopin, to use an example from a few posts back. But to me that shows compositional mastery/innovation rather than a lack of influence. He spent all that time transcribing the nine symphonies- three of them twice. His active concert repertoire from the 1850s, when he revised many of his original compositions, included 10 of Beethoven's sonatas, 2 of his concertos, and Liszt's own transcriptions of Beethoven pieces (source: Alan Walker's biography v.2). No decent composer could be around all that music without it rubbing off.

[bryfarr]

Also, on-topic, I think Alkan is the second best composer (behind Liszt), and that he is one of the few "forgotten" pianists of the time (others include Mereaux) who didn't deserve falling into obscurity.

For all the omissions of concertizing pianists from 1860-1940, plucking the best fruit of 19th century Western European piano music isn't one of them.  Many Liszt fans, loving the pyrotechnics, like Alkan too, but where Liszt was able to engage with melody and harmony, Alkan is usually boring, it doesn't say anything or take you anywhere.  But yes, the pianistic figurations are interesting.  This is my unpopular (or maybe not so unpopular) opinion for the day.

[pianistavt]

The Szymanowski concerto is better than both of Chopin's (maybe returning to the topic of unpopular opinions, though I know many people feel Chopin's orchestral writing is not on the same level as his piano writing)
[video]

Thanks for posting this.  Strange that YT channel doesn't add a description - no info at all about the piece or recording.  It sounded like the recording was older and maybe too compressed when digitalized. 

I would agree that putting this work above the Chopin concerti is going to be unpopular.  There's so much rich imaginative beauty in Chopin's piano writing.  This Szymanowski symphony-concerto is very well composed, but on a first listen nothing grabbed me as exceptional.  In general, I've found Szymanowski to be a bit stifled in his musical ideas, compared to his compatriot, Lutoslawski, for example.

[thorn]

There's so much rich imaginative beauty in Chopin's piano writing.

I agree but I was talking about his orchestral writing, which I personally find lacking.

[transitional]

Polish composers competition is a good idea.  Anything to get away from hearing 6 Chopin 1s and 3 Chopin 2s in a row for the finals.

Honestly I have no idea why they do the Concertos at the end of the competition. They're some of the most subpar Chopin pieces I've heard in terms of orchestral writing, and I'd prefer an hour of Mazurkas or Preludes or whatever to finishing the competition with an early major Chopin work with some spontaneous orchestral writing.

If anyone can explain why the Chopin concertos are so good to me, I'll be sure to give more listens!

[iamdopeuarenope]

Honestly I have no idea why they do the Concertos at the end of the competition. They're some of the most subpar Chopin pieces I've heard in terms of orchestral writing, and I'd prefer an hour of Mazurkas or Preludes or whatever to finishing the competition with an early major Chopin work with some spontaneous orchestral writing.

If anyone can explain why the Chopin concertos are so good to me, I'll be sure to give more listens!

I agree. The only good work Chopin wrote not for solo piano was his Cello Sonata, which is definitely one of my favorites of his and worth a listen if you haven't tried it.

[essence]

Sorry, not been following. Just listened to Schnabel playing Mozart. No, it does nothing, it only brings on feelings of pain from when I tried to play it, or listened to some teenager hacking through it.

But, as I said before, some Mozart I do enjoy. In comparison, I enjoy almost all Schubert, it touches me.

Maybe Mozart should never be played unless a level of competence is achieved? I fear the same is true of Beethoven and Fur Elise et al. Hate it.

Yet the easy Cholin preludes can be played at an early stage, and I still like them.

[bryfarr]

Sorry, not been following. Just listened to Schnabel playing Mozart. No, it does nothing.

Maybe Mozart should never be played unless a level of competence is achieved?

For one thing, Mozart sounds much better on the pianos of the early 19th century - Beethoven's piano, the "fortepiano".  Same for Haydn.

[thorn]

For one thing, Mozart sounds much better on the pianos of the early 19th century - Beethoven's piano, the "fortepiano".  Same for Haydn.

Mozart sounds best on a piano that's out of earshot 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Obsessing over difficulty is the shallowest non musical conversation that only exists cause people don’t actually enjoy the music or know how to talk about it

[thorn]

Obsessing over difficulty is the shallowest non musical conversation that only exists cause people don’t actually enjoy the music or know how to talk about it

It depends. As I said recently in another thread I think there are some pieces that people only care about learning because they're difficult (La Campanella was the topic of that particular thread).

I also really miss the days when this forum wasn't clogged up with difficulty ranking threads. That's not saying I'd ban them or anything, they're a bit of light fun. But I miss having proper discussions on here. Since these are rare- and I guess nostalgia keeps me from leaving the forum- I do post in difficulty threads now, where in the earlier days I never bothered.

ALL THAT BEING SAID- I think in the age of the internet there are more self-taught pianists around, without a teacher to give them pieces of the appropriate level or to have "I want to learn this piece that's above my level, can you give me pieces that are closer to my level but that will help me build the required technique for my dream piece" conversations with. So I do think there is a place for difficulty discussions.

[essence]

I suppose that's true in terms of harmony but not true in terms of form and overall concept.  Schubert focused on expression, Beethoven less so - cerebral and elevated to the end imo.  Yet both stayed resolutely in the classical concept.  It wasn't until the likes of Chopin and Liszt that expression was the primary focus, bending form, harmony, melody to its impetus.  I think most music historians consider this a revolution.  I agree another revolution occurred at the turn into the 20th century, the later half or third riding on the same wave.  I don't think another revolution in music is required.  The doors were blast open with the likes of Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and they haven't closed since.

Yes and no. Schubert's quartet D 887 is revolutionary, still challenging today. It hits you in the gut, whilst being structurally coherent. Maybe that should be read 'because it is structurally coherent'.

Bruckner and Mahler didn;t do anything which Schubert had not done before.

Currently listening to Mahler 6th. got fed up with my kids playing all kinds of garbage. albeiit I do like Tupac.

[brogers70]

Sorry, not been following. Just listened to Schnabel playing Mozart. No, it does nothing, it only brings on feelings of pain from when I tried to play it, or listened to some teenager hacking through it.

But, as I said before, some Mozart I do enjoy. In comparison, I enjoy almost all Schubert, it touches me.

Maybe Mozart should never be played unless a level of competence is achieved? I fear the same is true of Beethoven and Fur Elise et al. Hate it.

Yet the easy Cholin preludes can be played at an early stage, and I still like them.

Mozart has suffered, I think, because he has been appropriated as Muzak for upper class lawn parties, and because people talk a lot of nonsense about how he is restrained and symmetrical. First, he was a child of the Enlightenment, a Freemason; he expected the wall between aristocracy and the common people to be broken down. He worked for a living, in the sense the he made his money by selling his music, not by finding a noble patron. He was a revolutionary in a revolutionary period. Second, his music is "symmetric" only to the extent necessary to create expectations (of symmetry) which he could then break - his music is not an unending chain of 4 measure phrases and circle of fifths progressions. He was ebullient, squirting out notes (in his own words) as a "sow sprinkles piss." He was full of good humor, love of his fellow man, good fun, joy, as well as touches of melancholy and nostalgia. The way in which his music has been turned into a status symbol of upper class refinement has created a barrier to hearing it for what it is.

[bryfarr]

Mozart has suffered, I think, because he has been appropriated as Muzak for upper class lawn parties, and because people talk a lot of nonsense about how he is restrained and symmetrical. First, he was a child of the Enlightenment, a Freemason; he expected the wall between aristocracy and the common people to be broken down. He worked for a living, in the sense the he made his money by selling his music, not by finding a noble patron. He was a revolutionary in a revolutionary period. Second, his music is "symmetric" only to the extent necessary to create expectations (of symmetry) which he could then break - his music is not an unending chain of 4 measure phrases and circle of fifths progressions. He was ebullient, squirting out notes (in his own words) as a "sow sprinkles piss." He was full of good humor, love of his fellow man, good fun, joy, as well as touches of melancholy and nostalgia. The way in which his music has been turned into a status symbol of upper class refinement has created a barrier to hearing it for what it is.

oh ok, that explains my dislike of Mozart

[brogers70]

oh ok, that explains my dislike of Mozart

Of course you, or anybody else, may simply dislike Mozart. Still, sometimes the way current culture implicitly or explicitly categorizes art from a culture distant in time or space can interfere with liking it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

It depends. As I said recently in another thread I think there are some pieces that people only care about learning because they're difficult (La Campanella was the topic of that particular thread).

I also really miss the days when this forum wasn't clogged up with difficulty ranking threads. That's not saying I'd ban them or anything, they're a bit of light fun. But I miss having proper discussions on here. Since these are rare- and I guess nostalgia keeps me from leaving the forum- I do post in difficulty threads now, where in the earlier days I never bothered.

ALL THAT BEING SAID- I think in the age of the internet there are more self-taught pianists around, without a teacher to give them pieces of the appropriate level or to have "I want to learn this piece that's above my level, can you give me pieces that are closer to my level but that will help me build the required technique for my dream piece" conversations with. So I do think there is a place for difficulty discussions.

That last paragraph I agree with.  Those conversations aren’t like wHaTs HarDeR La CaMpANelLa or IsLamEy.  But yeah in general everyone talks about the same 10 pieces over and over and over again and don’t actually say anything meaningful about anything.  I’m convinced that don’t even like listening to classical music

Like who cares what’s harder Rach 3 or Prok 2?  Can you play the music or not?  Besides to your average artistic director/anyone who’s actually important fantasy impromptu sounds the same as Gaspard. 

[bryfarr]

That last paragraph I agree with.  Those conversations aren’t like wHaTs HarDeR La CaMpANelLa or IsLamEy.  But yeah in general everyone talks about the same 10 pieces over and over and over again and don’t actually say anything meaningful about anything.  I’m convinced that don’t even like listening to classical music

Like who cares what’s harder Rach 3 or Prok 2?  Can you play the music or not?  Besides to your average artistic director/anyone who’s actually important fantasy impromptu sounds the same as Gaspard.

Agreed - I found the DIFFICULTY posts series a bit superficial/tiresome because of the surface way of looking at composition.  Would have preferred YOUR FAVORITE AND WHY as the approach, but we're all coming at the repertoire from a different angle...  Some people are looking for the less difficult ones in a compositional series - like an etudes opus - in order to know where to get a foot hold, in that way the discussion is helpful.  And, I don't know why, some people get obsessed about the most difficult piece - - I guess it's a Mt Everest to stand back and admire, and admire those who attempt to scale it.

[thorn]

I think it's partially a sign of the age we live in- everything's short and sweet and meaningful conversation is a dying art form- particularly when it's between randoms on the internet/an app etc.

I would also prefer it if the hundreds of favourite threads on here spent more time discussing *why* posters like those pieces. But it's short and sweet culture again:
"what's your favourite of X set"
*people respond*
"cool, new thread: what's your favourite of Y set"
*repeat*

And, I don't know why, some people get obsessed about the most difficult piece - - I guess it's a Mt Everest to stand back and admire, and admire those who attempt to scale it.

And yes, that's what it is. I guess it's the same as admiring an Olympic gymnast or something. Though I also agree with rachmaninoff_forever that to your average person Fantasy Impromptu looks as impressive as Gaspard- much like when I watch Olympic gymnasts it's all impressive to me because I couldn't do any of it myself!

As a side note, Gaspard has been in my top 3 favourite piano works for 20 years, and anyone who thinks its most striking feature is its technical demands has misunderstood it. Ravel's comment about writing something more difficult than Islamey was surely tongue in cheek- he told Marguerite Long Scarbo was a 'caricature of Romanticism' that he got carried away with. Ravel was primarily interested in fairy tales, fantasy, distant worlds- look at his various other works. To quote Hamelin, Gaspard is one of the finest feats of musical illustration in the 20th c. piano literature.

[pianistavt]

Would this be an unpopular opinion?:

I don't like ISLAMEY. 

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Would this be an unpopular opinion?:

I don't like ISLAMEY.

Yes, lol.
In the spirit of the above posters:
WHY don't you like Islamey?

[thorn]

Would this be an unpopular opinion?:

I don't like ISLAMEY.

Same. It's an empty showpiece, lazily composed (repeats same motifs with growing technical demands), and comparing it to other pieces in the Orientalist style like the various versions of Scheherazade (Rimsky Korsakov, Ravel, Szymanowski) is like comparing a child's pencil drawing with a Monet.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Once again in the spirit of the above posts...
I'm fine with Islamey. I'd even say that it was (and still is) one of my favorite works.
I suppose I am primed to like it, since I've listened to many of Liszt's and Alkan's bravura pieces. Many of those pieces have been some of my favorites (e.g Grand Galop Chromatique, Op. 39 no. 10, etc.).

In fact, of the triplet of pieces I see touted as "most difficult" most often (Islamey, Gaspard, Feux Follets), Gaspard is my least favorite. I find it that Gaspard (particularly Scarbo), and not Islamey, is simply empty virtuosity. Though I'm normally fine with Ondine and Le Gibet, Scarbo kind of ruins the whole set.
Oh yeah, and Petrushka is better and harder than all three of the above.

How's that for an "unpopular opinion"?

[lelle]

I think it's partially a sign of the age we live in- everything's short and sweet and meaningful conversation is a dying art form- particularly when it's between randoms on the internet/an app etc.

I would also prefer it if the hundreds of favourite threads on here spent more time discussing *why* posters like those pieces. But it's short and sweet culture again:
"what's your favourite of X set"
*people respond*
"cool, new thread: what's your favourite of Y set"
*repeat*

And yes, that's what it is. I guess it's the same as admiring an Olympic gymnast or something. Though I also agree with rachmaninoff_forever that to your average person Fantasy Impromptu looks as impressive as Gaspard- much like when I watch Olympic gymnasts it's all impressive to me because I couldn't do any of it myself!

As a side note, Gaspard has been in my top 3 favourite piano works for 20 years, and anyone who thinks its most striking feature is its technical demands has misunderstood it. Ravel's comment about writing something more difficult than Islamey was surely tongue in cheek- he told Marguerite Long Scarbo was a 'caricature of Romanticism' that he got carried away with. Ravel was primarily interested in fairy tales, fantasy, distant worlds- look at his various other works. To quote Hamelin, Gaspard is one of the finest feats of musical illustration in the 20th c. piano literature.

I like Gaspard but think Scarbo is a bit too long and samey, even in the hands of a really good pianist. I wish he could have found a way to shorten it a bit. Especially on the first dozen listens it's just this long slog of samey stuff-that-happens. Ondine and Le Gibet on the other hand are lovely.

[bryfarr]

In fact, of the triplet of pieces I see touted as "most difficult" most often (Islamey, Gaspard, Feux Follets), Gaspard is my least favorite. I find it that Gaspard (particularly Scarbo), and not Islamey, is simply empty virtuosity. Though I'm normally fine with Ondine and Le Gibet, Scarbo kind of ruins the whole set.
Oh yeah, and Petrushka is better and harder than all three of the above.

How's that for an "unpopular opinion"?

Putting Stravinsky's Three Movements from Petrushka on a top pedestal for content and virtuosity will probably get a lot agreement...

Scarbo is all about the performer.  I don't think anyone can match Sergio Tiempo.  I don't tire of listening to his version, though I understand that with other performers.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Putting Stravinsky's Three Movements from Petrushka on a top pedestal for content and virtuosity will probably get a lot agreement.

Really?
In my experience, most people just don't like Petrushka that much, and nobody seems to think that it's actually more challenging than Feux Follets. I've also seen exactly three people who would agree that Petrushka is more challenging than Gaspard.

[thorn]

I like Petrushka, particularly the final movement. It's also a shame we don't talk about Firebird more often- the Agosti arrangement. I'm always amazed by the skill of one musician to arrange/transcribe the work of another (there's also Gryaznov's Rite of Spring for piano duet), it's a dying art form due to recording technology- the point of arranging in the 19th c was people couldn't hear orchestral/chamber pieces whenever they wanted.

And back to Gaspard, I generally prefer the classic recordings- Perlemuter, Meyer, François, Casadesus, Doyen- because they have that Ravellian delicacy to them. And I get what people have said about Scarbo. A big part of the problem is it doesn't speak for itself like Ondine/Le Gibet (and Islamey for that matter), it needs more thought on the pianist's part about how they're going to help the audience understand it. Personally I've heard Scarbo differently since I read someone describe it as a 'grotesque waltz'.

[iluvtchaikovsky]

I don't rlly like Valentina Lisitsa. Like her technique is great, but her interpretations are not the best.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I don't rlly like Valentina Lisitsa. Like her technique is great, but her interpretations are not the best.

I'd agree with that.

However, the primary reason that I dislike her is that she hold pro-Putin views.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I like Petrushka, particularly the final movement. It's also a shame we don't talk about Firebird more often- the Agosti arrangement. I'm always amazed by the skill of one musician to arrange/transcribe the work of another (there's also Gryaznov's Rite of Spring for piano duet), it's a dying art form due to recording technology- the point of arranging in the 19th c was people couldn't hear orchestral/chamber pieces whenever they wanted.

And back to Gaspard, I generally prefer the classic recordings- Perlemuter, Meyer, François, Casadesus, Doyen- because they have that Ravellian delicacy to them. And I get what people have said about Scarbo. A big part of the problem is it doesn't speak for itself like Ondine/Le Gibet (and Islamey for that matter), it needs more thought on the pianist's part about how they're going to help the audience understand it. Personally I've heard Scarbo differently since I read someone describe it as a 'grotesque waltz'.

Scarbo like isn’t a waltz at all though lol

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I like Gaspard but think Scarbo is a bit too long and samey, even in the hands of a really good pianist. I wish he could have found a way to shorten it a bit. Especially on the first dozen listens it's just this long slog of samey stuff-that-happens. Ondine and Le Gibet on the other hand are lovely.

Le Gibet is the most samey in the entire set it’s just a Bb ostinato and chords the whole time

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Le Gibet is the most samey in the entire set it’s just a Bb ostinato and chords the whole time

So anyone who likes Le Gibet is an idiot for liking something that's the essentially the same throughout?

That's what I'm hearing.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

So anyone who likes Le Gibet is an idiot for liking something that's the essentially the same throughout?

That's what I'm hearing.

That’s not what I said

His reason for not liking scarbo is that it sounds the same all the way through but Le Gibet is more ‘the same’ than scarbo.  So I’m just tryna get a more detailed answer for why he doesn’t like scarbo. 

Nobody is calling anyone an idiot here YOU’RE hearing that because you just want drama

[thorn]

Scarbo like isn’t a waltz at all though lol

Edit: I found where I heard this description, it wasn't something I read it was a masterclass video which is nice because he illustrates it. It's at 44:50 if the link reverts to the beginning (which it did for me). There's also a nice part at 50:30

i=WzQCWAAGu5gMyQvT&t=2690



As for Lisitsa, it's the old music and politics debate. I don't think you can separate art and politics in the case of creators- composers, painters etc. But interpreters like pianists are more of a grey area. If she's giving concerts to raise money for the Russian military then sure. But it's tricky otherwise...