Unpopular Opinions

[ricercar]

Also, and this may be even more unpopular: When I listen to Víkingur Ólafsson, sometimes I feel as though I am listening to an overly-polished, sterile Glenn Gould imitator with no grit.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Well, this is my hot take: I think Andras Schiff is an awful Bach interpreter.

I agree

[psipsi8]

Well, this is my hot take: I think Andras Schiff is an awful Bach interpreter.

I think the same regarding Cyprien Katsaris, who is an otherwise great interpreter particularly of romantic works.

[eee-_-]

Well, this is my hot take: I think Andras Schiff is an awful Bach interpreter.

I completely agree with you

[dizzyfingers]

Well, this is my hot take: I think Andras Schiff is an awful Bach interpreter.

Oh yeah?  Care to explain how you arrived at this verdict?

The reason Schiff became identified as a worthy Bach-ist is because of his place in the history of recorded music:  for years Glenn Gould ruled the Bach throne, even though his interpretations were uneven, and some of them downright unpleasant, i.e. robotic/neurotic, Schiff was a return to Bach with soul, something with warmth, he made a name for himself as a counter balance to Gould.  The public was ready, they warmly welcomed his more heart-felt interpretations.

[ricercar]

Oh yeah?  Care to explain how you arrived at this verdict?

The reason Schiff became identified as a worthy Bach-ist is because of his place in the history of recorded music:  for years Glenn Gould ruled the Bach throne, even though his interpretations were uneven, and some of them downright unpleasant, i.e. robotic/neurotic, Schiff was a return to Bach with soul, something with warmth, he made a name for himself as a counter balance to Gould.  The public was ready, they warmly welcomed his more heart-felt interpretations.

I completely disagree with this take. What people call "neurotic" in Gould, to my ears, is real intellectual and emotional depth. His Bach isn't lacking soul - on the contrary, when I listen to Gould's Bach, it's as if every note is a nuclear fission. The 1981 Goldberg Variations record without fail has me in tears on every listen. And many other records resonate with me deeply, in particular his Partita No. 5. Some of his records are less agreeable to my ears; for example his rendition of the P&F No. 4 in C#m from WTC 1 is horrendous in my opinion. But on the whole I identify more with Gould's Bach more than that of most pianists, with the exception of Rosalyn Tureck, who I think is even superior to Gould in some respects. Her clarity of voicing and articulation is extraordinary - each line is so precisely distinguished that you hear the architecture of Bach's counterpoint with more transparency than Gould achieved. She took this radical approach long before Gould, and frankly deserves far more recognition than she's received. In fact many of Gould's idioms in the Goldberg Variations are taken directly from her, note for note.

Anyway, Schiff sounds incredibly bland to me. What gets praised as "warmth" is really just conventional, safe, polished playing that doesn't challenge anything. To me it's the musical equivalent of beige. He plays Bach like it's elevator music.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

“Musicality” (I hate that word) and technique are the same thing I have no idea why people separate the two.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Also having good ears (not perfect pitch) automatically means you’re good at theory.  You might not have the vocabulary but you still have the knowledge

[ash120]

“Musicality” (I hate that word) and technique are the same thing I have no idea why people separate the two.

I wanted to contribute to this from a different angle.
Unpopular opinion, sure, but...
I wouldn't say they are exactly the same thing...but they certainly aren't mutually exclusive! At this point I have felt, many times, that musicality is often given much more credit than it deserves, and that many times, I feel like musicality is often used as an excuse, or a softer way, for saying someone has weak technique, at least, it has felt that way in my experience. There is a lot of discourse and debate on the pieces which are seen as the slow, lyrical, expressive ones which demand control, finesse, and musicality, against the percussive presto runs. I think this juxtaposition that people have created almost masks...an underlying excuse? And I'm not saying one over the other, I love listening to and playing both Satie's Gnossienne and Prokofiev's Suggestion Diabolique.

Honestly speaking, it's not a "this-or-that" music world. There are 50 shades of styles, mixes and tempos, but as much as people advocate for musical difficulty, I just don't see it; I kind of think it's bullshit, because to some extent, as long as you're able to implement some phrasing and dynamics into your repertoire (assuming your technique is solid), you'll be in a much better position than someone from the other side in the long run. And let's be honest...sure, exceptions exist, but on average, do slow pieces really have the potential to be more demanding than fast ones? Even people who are insanely musical have to polish their pieces and pull their music apart deliberately and consciously.
I think someone in this thread mentioned that having a good ear will be an asset for music theory, and, yes, for sure it will!
But being musical or having a good ear (or having people say that you do), is somewhat useless (and even frustrating) if your fingers can't execute what you hear or want to hear in your playing. Especially in more advanced oeuvre, weak technique is much more pellucid than lack of musicality on the keys. Patience needed to nail down a presto passage (which, by the way, should also be played musically), is no less than the so-called patience needed to play through and control a slow and expressive line. There isn't a need to replace one with the other. Can you really separate them? At the highest levels, technique IS musicality - the ability to produce exactly the sound you want, when you want it, with the color and character you intend. That is technique. Regardless of whether you consider them the same thing or not, you have to put them together at some point.

That's my unpopular opinion !!

- Ash

[thorn]

Being a god tier pianist doesn't make someone a good arranger. I have nothing but admiration for figures like Horowitz and Cziffra but I find their arrangements fall into the trap of "doing things because they can" vs. because they serve the music. I fully expect to be shot down in flames about this, but there it is.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Being a god tier pianist doesn't make someone a good arranger. I have nothing but admiration for figures like Horowitz and Cziffra but I find their arrangements fall into the trap of "doing things because they can" vs. because they serve the music.

Yeah, unlike e.g. Alkan, Cziffra having a reputation for writing (or more often improvising) absurdly difficult music is entirely earned. One of my favorite of his improvs is the one on "Silent Night," depicting holiday celebration during a war. There's not remotely as much "stuff crammed in" compared to some of his other improvs.

[thorn]

I have lots to say about transcribing, arranging, improvising, paraphrasing etc. which probably needs its own thread, but you're right in pointing out they're different genres which I didn't respect in my original post.

On the topic of my specific post above, the best way I can describe what I mean is by imagining the difference between spending Halloween doing a Ouija board vs doing a Saw marathon. They achieve the same effect through different methods, the rest is personal taste. But Cziffra is solidly a Saw movie.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

All these big prestigious brand name music festivals and competitions are money laundering schemes.

We all know that art museums pretty much exist for drug lords and weapons dealers to launder their money.  That’s why they buy so much “high art”

And festivals/comps some of the brand name orchestras have the exact same business models

Rich doners don’t ACTUALLY like high art they’re just moving money illegally.

It’s a pretty wild take but I think I’m right on this

[the_franzliszt]

Rich doners don’t ACTUALLY like high art they’re just moving money illegally.

It’s a pretty wild take but I think I’m right on this

This is a very very wild accusation/take

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This is a very very wild accusation/take

Okay okay okay just hear me out…

None of these organizations actually make enough money to sustain themselves.  Okay fine that’s why a lot of them are registered as 501c3.  Okay FINE…

BUT…

I’ve done fundraisers for a lot of these people.  If you’ve ever had a conversation with some of these arts doners, they’re some of the most musically illiterate people you’ll meet.  They don’t know anything about what they’re giving their money to.  Nor do they even care.  The only explanation for this has to be money laundering lol

[liszt-and-the-galops]

This is a very very wild accusation/take

Not really. Did you know that the ultrarich steal more than $50 billion USD from their employees every year in the US alone? https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/

Also, here's the MediaBias/FactCheck page on the EPI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/economic-policy-institute/

[the_franzliszt]

[quote author=rachmaninoff_forever link=topic=66555.msg755778#msg755778 date=1773896216
I’ve done fundraisers for a lot of these people.  If you’ve ever had a conversation with some of these arts doners, they’re some of the most musically illiterate people you’ll meet.  They don’t know anything about what they’re giving their money to.  Nor do they even care.  The only explanation for this has to be money laundering lol
[/quote]

I've always donating to the arts, along with my family, and have also had discussions with other donors. The ones whom I've had conversations with seem to know the arts well, but I'm some who may use it as a tax write off or money laundering scheme.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Not really. Did you know that the ultrarich steal more than $50 billion USD from their employees every year in the US alone? https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/

Also, here's the MediaBias/FactCheck page on the EPI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/economic-policy-institute/

Wage theft is the biggest type of theft there is. 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

[quote author=rachmaninoff_forever link=topic=66555.msg755778#msg755778 date=1773896216
I’ve done fundraisers for a lot of these people.  If you’ve ever had a conversation with some of these arts doners, they’re some of the most musically illiterate people you’ll meet.  They don’t know anything about what they’re giving their money to.  Nor do they even care.  The only explanation for this has to be money laundering lol


I've always donating to the arts, along with my family, and have also had discussions with other donors. The ones whom I've had conversations with seem to know the arts well, but I'm some who may use it as a tax write off or money laundering scheme.

Are you like ultra rich? I’m not really talking about your normal rich person.  I have a doner and yeah they’re like normal but I’m talking about these big whales that dump millions into these organizations

[the_franzliszt]

Are you like ultra rich? I’m not really talking about your normal rich person.  I have a doner and yeah they’re like normal but I’m talking about these big whales that dump millions into these organizations

No, no lol, nothing compared to the Rockefellers/Rothschilds of the world, etc etc.
I've talked to people who've put hundreds of thousands and maybe at the most a few million into these organizations, not millions upon millions. But the people I've talked to all have a commitment and understanding of the arts.

[fender]

I’ve done fundraisers for a lot of these people.  If you’ve ever had a conversation with some of these arts doners, they’re some of the most musically illiterate people you’ll meet.  They don’t know anything about what they’re giving their money to.  Nor do they even care.  The only explanation for this has to be money laundering lol

I agree.  Some might speculate that maybe doners were told by their rich parents to give to charities to help others and take a tax deduction and the doners are too lazy to research or care about the charities they give to.  But this is just crazy speculation.  I agree - must be money laundering. The question is - what can we do about it?  Are we just going to complain or are we actually going to do something?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I agree.  Some might speculate that maybe doners were told by their rich parents to give to charities to help others and take a tax deduction and the doners are too lazy to research or care about the charities they give to.  But this is just crazy speculation.  I agree - must be money laundering. The question is - what can we do about it?  Are we just going to complain or are we actually going to do something?

I'm not complaining about it, and I kinda don't really care???  And even if I was it's not like we CAN do anything anyways. 

[fender]

I'm not complaining about it, and I kinda don't really care???  And even if I was it's not like we CAN do anything anyways.

We know it must be money laundering.  Is there any way we can prove this and report this to the FBI?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

We know it must be money laundering.  Is there any way we can prove this and report this to the FBI?

I just said It's not like we CAN do anything anyways.

come on now think about it.  The LPO and another festival in like Germany got busted for fraud like 10 years ago so this isn't completely out of the blue.  The arts world is the easiest place to launder money.  Prices of assets are subjective and impossible to like truly verify, and there's high potential for anonymous transactions.  If I wanted to launder money, I would go to the arts world. 

Also, another tangent from this.  New billionaires aren't donating to the arts, and current big whales aren't indoctrinating their offspring into donating to the (classical music) arts.  So in like another 20 years when everyone dies, money to support the infrastructure is gonna be a problem.

[fender]

I just said It's not like we CAN do anything anyways.

I watch "American Greed" show.  There are many cases of money laundering that are successfully prosecuted on these shows.  What evidence can I offer to the FBI about the money laundering problem that you describe? 

You say "Rich doners don’t ACTUALLY like high art they’re just moving money illegally."  I agree with you that money laundering is the ONLY explanation for why rich music doners don't know anything about music.  Do you have any other evidence that I can report to FBI?

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Is there any way we can prove this and report this to the FBI?

Do you actually think that the FBI (or any part of the US government) is going to go after the ultrarich, let alone under this administration? People have been doing stuff like Buy-Borrow-Die and wage theft for a long time and no one has ever been punished for it.

what can we do about it?

If you live in the US, vote for politicians who actually give two sh_ts about protecting the working class (obviously stay within the two-party system unless you're in a state with electoral fusion, since otherwise you're just voting for a spoiler). If there aren't any politicians running in your district who would help workers, then vote for politicians who might go along with the other representatives who do care.

Also volunteer with your local mutual aid group(s) (most places in the US have several).

If you really want to put in some work, do some research about your state's and/or county's legal code and/or what bills are being voted on this cycle and lobby for ones that will help the working class and those in poverty.

[fender]

come on now think about it.  The LPO and another festival in like Germany got busted for fraud like 10 years ago so this isn't completely out of the blue.  The arts world is the easiest place to launder money.  Prices of assets are subjective and impossible to like truly verify, and there's high potential for anonymous transactions.  If I wanted to launder money, I would go to the arts world. 

I agree.  This means that your doners that you work with are involved with illegal activities.  Can you try to get more evidence?  Why not talk with them?

You:  Thank you for donating.  Can you tell me why you decided to contribute to classical music?  You don't seem to know a lot about classical music.

Doner:  My father taught me to give to charity when I was young.  It helps people and I am able to take a big tax deduction.  I talked to some of my colleagues and they recommended that I contribute to a music organization for the following reason:  ______________.    I did my due diligence and felt that this is a great place to donate.

Note: Maybe the reason is to foster diversity in the musical arts for minority or under underprivileged communities.

I agree with you. They are likely involved in money laundering. Why not get to know your doners?  If they are involved in money laundering, you should be able to get more evidence of this. 

But if you already made your mind up that they are criminals, maybe just go with your gut.  Brand them as criminals.  You won't get any arguments from me.

[fender]

Do you actually think that the FBI (or any part of the US government) is going to go after the ultrarich, let alone under this administration? People have been doing stuff like Buy-Borrow-Die and wage theft for a long time and no one has ever been punished for it.

Yes - if you have the evidence.  I am not a conspiracy theorist.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Yes - if you have the evidence.

What reason would the closest allies/yes-men of a multi-billionaire have for going after other multi-billionaires?

And no, the other party isn't going to go after their biggest donors, either. That's just how politics works in this country.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

...And what does this have to do with our conversation?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yes - if you have the evidence.  I am not a conspiracy theorist.

There’s literally an obvious international sex trafficking ring involving the world’s most powerful leaders and influential people and the US is denying it and hasn’t arrested anybody. 

So this conspiracy about fine arts being a haven for money laundering isn’t that out there.  And we owe every conspiracy theorist an apology lol



 

[fender]

What reason would the closest allies/yes-men of a multi-billionaire have for going after other multi-billionaires?

...And what does this have to do with our conversation?

Are you saying that the crooks that Rach is correctly describing are multi-billionaires?  I want these criminals put in jail.  Money laundering is a serious crime.  Bernie Madoff was pretty rich and powerful and he was found guilty of money laundering.

You: "...And what does this have to do with our conversation?"

This - referring to "Conspiracy theorist"?

Conspiracy theorist: a person who believes that some influential or controlling organization or group is secretly responsible for a notable event or phenomenon.

Influential or controlling organization - Multi-Billionaires?
Notable event or phenomenon:  FBI not going after multi-billionaire criminals?

Liszt - am i misunderstnding what you are saying?  Please correct me.

[fender]

There’s literally an obvious international sex trafficking ring involving the world’s most powerful leaders and influential people and the US is denying it and hasn’t arrested anybody. 

So this conspiracy about fine arts being a haven for money laundering isn’t that out there.  And we owe every conspiracy theorist an apology lol

I absolutely agree that you (Rach) are correctly identifying a money laundering scheme!

Gentlemen:  We are in agreement.  Rach has correctly identified a money laundering scheme.  Where we may differ:  I believe these criminals need to be put in jail.  I have faith that the FBI will do this if we can get enough evidence.  We are just a little short of evidence, but we are close.

Okay okay okay just hear me out…

None of these organizations actually make enough money to sustain themselves.  Okay fine that’s why a lot of them are registered as 501c3.  Okay FINE…

BUT…

I’ve done fundraisers for a lot of these people.  If you’ve ever had a conversation with some of these arts doners, they’re some of the most musically illiterate people you’ll meet.  They don’t know anything about what they’re giving their money to.  Nor do they even care.  The only explanation for this has to be money laundering lol

Rach:  Is there any way you can get more information on these criminal rich doners that you work with?  Are they multi-billionaires as Liszt may be suggesting? How can you agree to work with these criminals?  I'm not blaming you in any way.  Did you ever consider not performing at one of their events?

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Are you saying that the crooks that Rach is correctly describing are multi-billionaires?

I don't know, and I don't care. That's not the conversation that I'm having.

Money laundering is a serious crime.  Bernie Madoff was pretty rich and powerful and he was found guilty of money laundering.

Cool. Now find someone who was thrown in jail for Buy-Borrow-Die, or anyone on the Forbes 400 who was locked up for wage theft. You'll find that it's a lot harder.

Conspiracy theorist: a person who believes that some influential or controlling organization or group is secretly responsible for a notable event or phenomenon.

Influential or controlling organization - Multi-Billionaires?
Notable event or phenomenon:  FBI not going after multi-billionaire criminals?

Liszt - am i misunderstanding what you are saying?  Please correct me.

Gladly. It's not a conspiracy because the FBI and billionaires (adding on "criminals" is redundant) aren't plotting this together in secret. It's just that politicians have plenty of incentives to not go after these people, so they don't (the vast majority of politicians in the US, at least). E.g. donations (which are often basically bribes -- see Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance for one example), and the fact that going after people with (effectively) all the money in the world is difficult.

And yes, billionaires secretly collaborate to make more money. The most famous example is the Phoebus cartel, but there's loads of others that you could find with a little more digging.

I have faith that the FBI will do this if we can get enough evidence.

I envy your faith in humanity.

[fender]

I don't know, and I don't care. That's not the conversation that I'm having.
Cool. Now find someone who was thrown in jail for Buy-Borrow-Die, or anyone on the Forbes 400 who was locked up for wage theft. You'll find that it's a lot harder.
Gladly. It's not a conspiracy because the FBI and billionaires (adding on "criminals" is redundant) aren't plotting this together in secret. It's just that politicians have plenty of incentives to not go after these people, so they don't (the vast majority of politicians in the US, at least). E.g. donations (which are often basically bribes -- see Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance for one example), and the fact that going after people with (effectively) all the money in the world is difficult.

And yes, billionaires secretly collaborate to make more money. The most famous example is the Phoebus cartel, but there's loads of others that you could find with a little more digging.
I envy your faith in humanity.

After further thought, you convinced me.  Rach has identified a money laundering scheme and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  The FBI is worthless.  The multi-billionaires and politicians are the problem.

So, we are ALL in agreement.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

there is nothing anyone can do about it.

There's plenty that you can do about it.

If you live in the US, vote for politicians who actually give two sh_ts about protecting the working class (obviously stay within the two-party system unless you're in a state with electoral fusion, since otherwise you're just voting for a spoiler). If there aren't any politicians running in your district who would help workers, then vote for politicians who might go along with the other representatives who do care.

Also volunteer with your local mutual aid group(s) (most places in the US have several).

If you really want to put in some work, do some research about your state's and/or county's legal code and/or what bills are being voted on this cycle and lobby for ones that will help the working class and those in poverty.

And if you don't live in the US, then you can still do these things. Just swap some words out where appropriate.

Anyways, welcome back, frodo10. :)

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Jesus why is this dude so butthurt about this

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Anyways, welcome back, frodo10. :)

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[fender]

Jesus why is this dude so butthurt about this

What did I do?  I'm agreeing with you. 

[fender]

Anyways, welcome back, frodo10. :)

 

Thanks!

Great discussion, gentlemen!

[gasplamey]

Early Scikrsbin ibsetter than late Scireban.
Cziffra is the second best tehcnaicsian but horible musically.
Yunchan Lim is seocbnsd best living pieainst.
Hamelin is best paisnit of all time bc better technicainas than Cziffra and fabnastixc interprfeter.

[ash120]

I concur that early Scriabin >> late Scriabin. I'd take Op. 11 and Op. 8 over his late works any day.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Mendelssohn-Hensel - Das Jahr is better than Tchaikovsky - The Seasons.

[benbspiano]

Too much typing and not enough playing here - you should be required to post an audition room post for every 30 other posts.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Too much typing and not enough playing here - you should be required to post an audition room post for every 30 other posts.

I can't speak for others, but the reason that I don't post much in the audition room is because I haven't had access to a piano in over a year lmao.

[thorn]

I don't post in audition room because I prefer playing in IRL settings. But I'm doing auditions later this year so might share a few things then.

[benbspiano]

I can't speak for others, but the reason that I don't post much in the audition room is because I haven't had access to a piano in over a year lmao.

Even just seeing more feedback and replies in the audition room would be way better than what I currently see. Of course I should follow my own advice too - I should stop lurking and respond to more posts there. An online forum is a good way to hear opinions and get feedback on what you're working on, see how a wider range of perspectives is hearing your work, it's a shame it is under-utilized.

[dizzyfingers]

Even just seeing more feedback and replies in the audition room would be way better than what I currently see. Of course I should follow my own advice too - I should stop lurking and respond to more posts there. An online forum is a good way to hear opinions and get feedback on what you're working on, see how a wider range of perspectives is hearing your work, it's a shame it is under-utilized.

Very good point.
We should all be commenting on those posts more - - constructive criticism (from those who understand piano playing) or a simple "I enjoyed it"  or "I appreciate your efforts".

[ash120]

My unpopular opinion: Musicality is an excuse, or soft way of saying, "weak technique"

[essence]

I've had my piano tuned recently, gathering pennies to purchase decent microphone, then will dismay y'all with my efforts.

[dizzyfingers]

My unpopular opinion: Musicality is an excuse, or soft way of saying, "weak technique"

Yes, a vulnerable opinion (logically), for sure. 

Here are some angles on musicality / technique:
A piece can be played with strong technique and strong musicality.  Bingo!
A piece can be played with strong technique but thin on musicality - the effect may be convincing to the plebian listener but not to the experienced listener.
Some pieces can be played with okay (but only okay) technique and strong musicality, and the over all effect is convincing because the piece's musicality is the main focus.
Some pieces played with just okay technique and good musicality are not convincing because technique is such an important element of the piece.
Need we mention okay technique and okay musicality?  Probably since that's most students and most amateur pianists.  If they're humble about it, it's okay, if they have delusions about their abilities, it's annoying.