Lang Lang, Slammed.

[steinwayguy]

https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8566

Ouch.

[Dikai]

I really wanna say this to that critic...
"Go, play it, play for us, what should this sound like??  you must be perfect, so play it!!  btw, you must know rachmaninoff really well, how old are you??"

[Dikai]

i think that critic dude's goal is to attack asian musicians...
some racism going on here...

[Dikai]

the fact that nothing good was complimented to lang lang make me sure of the fact that this guy cannot appreciate music at all...
he's indeed a pure "critic"...
sucks to be him tho... all he sees is imperfection...
he must be an unhappy person...

[Dikai]

it's almost like the the person critizing tschaikovsky's 1st piano concerto before it became public...
he must feel aweful after finding out that everybody else loved it but him....

[aquariuswb]

...Or the critic is simply right...

[musik_man]

So anyone who takes a completely negative view of LL really just hates Asians.

hmmmmm....

Tibidi has been good enough to inform us that people who dislike Yundi Li(and most of the people who pretend to like him) are secret Lang-Langites.

I think we need to find the secret motivations behind every critic of every pianist.  Does someone hate Horowitz's Mephisto Waltz because it's poorly played? No!  It's from Antisemitism.  And people who think Agerich is all flash... male chauvinist pig-dogs to the last
 

Seriously people, most critics have no secret agenda.  They just don't like that particular pianist's style.

[brewtality]

Dikai, your posts in this thread are unbelievably stupid. Please tell me you're not being serious.

[xvimbi]

it's almost like the the person critizing tschaikovsky's 1st piano concerto before it became public...
he must feel aweful after finding out that everybody else loved it but him....

Wow Dikai, you must be really disgusted. Are you tibidi's equivalent?

On the Tchaikovsky No. 1: who is "everybody" who loves LL's version. I have seen him play it live, and it was the most god-awful version I have ever heard. I don't even want to call it a "version" or "interpretation", because I am convinced that LL didn't really reflect on what he was doing. In fact, when I read the critique about his Rach2, I was reminded of that Tchaikovsky performance. The same critique applies to both those renditions, so it seems LL is somewhat consistent. And, I have hardly ever heard anything positive about LL's Tchaikovsky, so what are you talking about?

[Dikai]

hmm... very interesting... i'm a firm believer that we may critisize a pianist when we reach that kind of technical level...
when you can play that piece, you may dislike how the others play it...
but b4 that... it would seem that anyone who can play the piece with that kind of technical perfection is quite impressive...

[aquariuswb]

hmm... very interesting... i'm a firm believer that we may critisize a pianist when we reach that kind of technical level...
when you can play that piece, you may dislike how the others play it...
but b4 that... it would seem that anyone who can play the piece with that kind of technical perfection is quite impressive...

How naïve! Technicality means absolutely NOTHING without musicality. Zilch.

[Dikai]

it's like people critisizing every politician there ever was...
people would say that ohh.. he's not good here and there and etc...
but when the person who critisizes the politician, becomes a politician...
it's him who is critisized... (then he knows what it feels like)...
do you guys see my frustration??
that's why i take the opposite approach...
it's much more objective to say who's better than who in a certain area...
-----
but in front of a TV, people always complain how a basketball player can't get the 3-point, why did he miss, how come the pass was so bad, how could he not see something and stuff.... but the person who says these things, can he play basketball even at the 1/10 the level??  probably not...
------
again... please let me know if you people see my frustration...
naturally you'll disagree with me... but do tell me if you know what i'm talking about...

[Dikai]

naturally, technicality is considered "nothing" in terms of musicality, that's because it's assumed to be perfect already...

not achieve note-wise perfection is of course normal, but it depends on if you accidentally missed it, or you did not do your homework and had it learned...

you can be assured that the great pianists don't miss notes because they don't know it, they simply slipped their finger, which is totally fine....

however, picture a person playing piano.... he tries to play say, a chopin scherzo, the emotions, musicality, personal interpretation are all there, but he just can't play the notes right... picture it .... doesn't look too good ??

[Dikai]

ohh... btw, when i said Tchaikovsky's concerto, i meant Tchaikovsky  himself....
before he performed it the first time, wasn't him badly critized by rubinstein??
but after the successful performance, rubinstein kinda dropped it....

[Dikai]

xvimbi, please do read the quote you quote from me again carefully....
Tchaikovsky"'s", "before it became public"....
suggests that i wasn't refering it to LL's...

[aquariuswb]

Ok, I understand your frustrations. However, if you look at that review again, you'll notice that the critic isn't just saying "LL sucks! BOO!!!" Rather, he breaks down the reasons why he dislikes the recording... makes them clear as day. When compared with other professional-caliber recordings, LL's recording falls short in all the ways the critic describes. Why should LL be exempt from comparison to other musicians of his caliber, of his technical skill? As you said, the technical skill is assumed to be there, so the ONLY criteria on which we can base our judgments, assuming the technique is there, is musicality -- musical substance, musical maturity, faithfullness to the score (and if at times there are moments of unfaithfullness, they should be warranted, which in LL's case they are not). If LL falls short of these things, why should we not discuss them and point them out?

Your argument with the politicians holds no water, either. It's quite absurd, really. It's not about how the politician "feels." Politicans represent the people. Political officers, therefore, must ANSWER to the people. All politicians SHOULD be criticized and their decisions studied and analyzed. These are important issues, and if you don't think you can handle it, you should not run for office, it's just that simple.

Likewise, as soon as you put out a record, you put yourself at the mercy of the public and the critics. If LL wants to put out Rach 2 on a major label like DG, he should play it well. When LL puts out a recording, he knows what he is getting into. He knows that his performance will be dealt with by the critics and the public alike. With that in mind, he probably should have thought longer before recording this piece, because it is clear from this recording (which I own by the way) that, at least in this particular performance, LL's take is not up to par. Maybe he DOES have the musical maturity to play it well, and this was just a bad take -- in which case, another take was in order!

Anything released into the public is open to fire. Period. You can disagree (especially if you've actually listened to the recording), but that critic had quite a few specifics that support his claim. If you feel LL's performance was good, in comparison with other pianists of his prestige, then go ahead and say so... but tell us why you feel that way. Give specifics like this critic did, otherwise you really have no point at all.

[dinosaurtales]

Well, it's obvious the reviewer didn't like the recording, the orchestra, nor LL!  I did not, however, notice any "racist" overtones.  It was just negative overall.  I do not have this particular recording.  is it really bad (it IS possible, you know - there are lots of awful recordings out there).  I have heard LL a couple of times and was less than impressed given all the fuss over him.  I found his playing to almost be random relative to the composer's writing, except he played all the notes.  But he does tend to blow off dynamics, articulation, and various other elements that are written into the score and supplant his own "unique" twists.  Not my cup of tea.

[lenny]

i enjoy watchin langlang alot more than listening

even when he sounds bad, he looks hilarious!

i find him very entertaining, and i actually enjoy his exaggerated and tasteless playing

to sum it up - i wouldnt buy his cds(unless i heard they were really good)
but i HAVE just bought his dvd 

[steinwayguy]

i enjoy watchin langlang alot more than listening

even when he sounds bad, he looks hilarious!

i find him very entertaining, and i actually enjoy his exaggerated and tasteless playing

to sum it up - i wouldnt buy his cds(unless i heard they were really good)
but i HAVE just bought his dvd

Now that's the most sensible post on this thread.


On a lighter note, why in the hell must we be able to play the Rachmaninoff Second in order to critique it? Being "technically inferior" to Lang Lang does not prevent me from having a valid opinion of his recording. That said, the recording is horrific. I saw him perform this piece live with the Philadelphia Orchestra and was truthfully appalled.

[lenny]

i have a video performance of his rach3

the way he looks at climax sections is truly hilarious, and worth the price of admission just for that.

he is, i think inarguably, an astounding talent, both technically and musically.
its the use/abuse of this talent that is often criticised, this has to be made clear.

in certain sections of certain pieces he often sounds amazing, but obviously what he lacks, or maybe even chooses not to have , is maturity.

langlang doesnt see the music he plays as a whole - he doesnt think about whats coming next so much as more mature pianists. his interpretations are OBVIOUSLY not thought over very much, if at all, his interpretations are basied primarily upon musical whims and idiosyncracies.

BUT

this actually does entertain me, this type of playing is refreshing and spontanious, and most importantly - especially to piano-newcomers - exciting.

when listening to/watching langlang - i dont expect profundity - i expect an entertaining romp.

this is my opinion....i like langlang! 

[galonia]

lenny you have to be the most sane person in this place.

I personally dislike LL's playing, not that I have his technical abilities, but that doesn't preclude me from having a personal choice of not enjoying the experience of listening to his performances.  However, I see lenny's point of the fact that LL is quite good value as visual entertainment, and in our visually-dominated world of today, this may not be a bad thing for the promotion of classical music among the masses.

[lenny]

well, regardless of the music, this clip is one of the most HILARIOUS things ive ever seen! :

https://datazz2.free.fr/longdong_comedic.avi

 

[Hmoll]

I thought the review, though not exactly balanced, was well written.
LL was not the only object of the reviewer's disdain. The producers at DG, the conductor,and orchestra did not fare well either.

He seems to have a good knowledge of the music, and used specific examples in his review, which a lot of LL blasters do not.

I'm wondering why, with the glut of good Rach2, 3, and Pag. Var. recordings out there, why Deutsche Gram. recorded yet another pretty ordinary one.

[Dikai]

you all have one point rite...
his expression when he plays is truly amazing...
he not only make a great comedien....
i think he must be very talented in chinese kong fu!!
the way his face changes the expression can scary the potential enemy...

[Brian Healey]

Something I like very much about Lang Lang is that he doesn't care what people think of him. I've seen him in interviews, and he is always funny and happy (although sometimes over the top, as in the video that Lenny posted  ), and basically he doesn't take himself too seriously. In the often "stuffy" world of classical music, I find his personality to be very refreshing at times, and so does the media, obviously (it's my opinion that the reason LL gets so much more attention than Yundi Li is because Li isn't very camera-friendly, or at least not nearly as much). For better or worse, Lang's lighthearted attitude shows through in his performances. Often times, I think it's because of his offbeat, outgoing, and sometimes silly personality that he gets raked by traditionalist critics, and not neccessarily because of his music.

Let me supplement the above by saying that I'm not a particularly big fan of Lang Lang, but I've heard things by him that I really enjoy.


Peace,
Bri

[ted]

Around a year ago I was waiting to collect my wife from somewhere or other and turned on the car radio. I listened what I thought was the most sensitive Islamey I had ever heard - no bluster, no bash-crash ninety-miles-an-hour rush. It sounded as if it meant something to the player.

When it finished they announced it was this bloke Lang Lang (I didn't know him from a bar of soap) and I made a mental note to hear his Islamey again.

Little did I realise that I had, at one bound, grasped both the nettles of piano forums !

[lenny]

Around a year ago I was waiting to collect my wife from somewhere or other and turned on the car radio. I listened what I thought was the most sensitive Islamey I had ever heard - no bluster, no bash-crash ninety-miles-an-hour rush. It sounded as if it meant something to the player.

When it finished they announced it was this bloke Lang Lang (I didn't know him from a bar of soap) and I made a mental note to hear his Islamey again.

Little did I realise that I had, at one bound, grasped both the nettles of piano forums !

thats the thing, he is AMAZINGLY TALENTED!

his mendy 1st is actually a superb reading by any standards

[lenny]

you all have one point rite...
his expression when he plays is truly amazing...
he not only make a great comedien....
i think he must be very talented in chinese kong fu!!
the way his face changes the expression can scary the potential enemy...

lol, his HADOKEN has become legendary

[lenny]

I thought the review, though not exactly balanced, was well written.
LL was not the only object of the reviewer's disdain. The producers at DG, the conductor,and orchestra did not fare well either.

He seems to have a good knowledge of the music, and used specific examples in his review, which a lot of LL blasters do not.

I'm wondering why, with the glut of good Rach2, 3, and Pag. Var. recordings out there, why Deutsche Gram. recorded yet another pretty ordinary one.

MONEY, thats primarily what record companies are all about

langlang is the biggest name, like it or not, in the classical music world right now.

whether its a great record or not is relatively inconsequential- it will sell by the thousands regardless.

[lenny]

Something I like very much about Lang Lang is that he doesn't care what people think of him. I've seen him in interviews, and he is always funny and happy (although sometimes over the top, as in the video that Lenny posted  ), and basically he doesn't take himself too seriously. In the often "stuffy" world of classical music, I find his personality to be very refreshing at times, and so does the media, obviously (it's my opinion that the reason LL gets so much more attention than Yundi Li is because Li isn't very camera-friendly, or at least not nearly as much). For better or worse, Lang's lighthearted attitude shows through in his performances. Often times, I think it's because of his offbeat, outgoing, and sometimes silly personality that he gets raked by traditionalist critics, and not neccessarily because of his music.

Let me supplement the above by saying that I'm not a particularly big fan of Lang Lang, but I've heard things by him that I really enjoy.


Peace,
Bri

yes, but every positive you listed is percieved as a negative by many serious music fans.

a light-hearted attitude towards music isnt exactly what most serious classical reviewers look for.

i dont know him, but one thing i hope is that he has the intelligence and humility to understand the genuine constructive criticism thats given to him.

[Hmoll]

MONEY, thats primarily what record companies are all about

 

True to a certain extent because, of course, they are a business. However, if making money was their only concern ( I realize you said "primarily," btw) they would sign eminem and Britney Spears. Making money has to be tempered by what their overall mission is: high quality recordings of great music performed by great musicians. This is the record label that recorded Zimmerman, Pletnev, Pollini, Argerich, Pogorolich, etc., etc.  LL is not in that league, and neither are his recordings (with the possible exception of the Mendelssohn Gm concerto).

[lenny]

no, as always there is a niche marked to be tapped

there are record labels that specifically deal with heavy metal for example -such as nuclear blast and century media - now these label's primary aim is to make money, they know that non-mainstream heavy metal will never be as popular as bubblegum pop, but they are tapping a resource in the marked
filling a void if you will

actually i think the langlang signing for DG will boost their overall income and boost the potential money available to promote the other serious artists.

im not saying its all about money, but it is by far the primary concern of almost any record company.

[rachmaninoff_969]

Well, this is a very interesting post, and I much agree that one need not have played the Tchaikovsky and the Rachmaninoff 2 to pass judgement on Lang Lang's playing.  However, I wish to offer the view of a pianist who has played both of these works several times.  There is no doubt that the recordings are far from great.  In fact, I have heard many university graduate students play better.  One thing that must be mentioned, however, is that he has a formidable technique.  Unfortunately, this renders his interpretation to be rather technical.  I do not feel that his playing style is best suited for such large scale Romantic works.  His Mendelssohn was very good, and I have heard him play some other pieces quite marvelously.  When he plays more "subdued" repertoire he no longer comes across as a monkey performing well rehearsed tricks.

However, let us not forget that the conductor's interpretation in both recordings is quite awful, and neither orchestra is anything to brag about.  I must agree with the critic however, in deeming the tempos and temporal inconsistencies inexcusable.  Even though there are many possible interpretations, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky each wrote some directions on the page! Lang Lang ignores these and gives a rather insulting performance.  I  believe it is just a question of musical maturity.  In several years from now I bet that he will begin to shine as a very good pianist...perhaps not a great like Horowitz, Richter, Gilels etc., but certainly as one of the very good ones.  Just a thought...

[SteinwayTony]

it's almost like the the person critizing tschaikovsky's 1st piano concerto before it became public...
he must feel aweful after finding out that everybody else loved it but him....

First of all, you only need to post once.  Second, don't be an idiot.

[steinwaymodeld]

First of all, you only need to post once.  Second, don't be an idiot.

Well, just let him have it... U should see the reason why no one is responding to him.
BTW, the guy who critized(?) the Tch1 is Nikolai Rubinstein, who was a VERY good friend with Tch. ANd I partially think he is right about Tch1, if u have read what he said CAREFULLY.

[willcowskitz]

i'm a firm believer that we may critisize a pianist when we reach that kind of technical level..

Yeah and we can't tell the guy with nukes to not blow up the Earth before we got some nukes of our own. Of course appreciation of music and any art in the matter works the same way as two gorillas fighting over a peeing territory.

Another note: This is a forum, or a message board if you wish, not a chat. Think before you post, so you know if you left something out or maybe put something in that you should had left out. The forum stays much cleaner and more compact that way. Thanks.

[thepianogirli]

How naïve! Technicality means absolutely NOTHING without musicality. Zilch.

hmm... So if you were the judge, would you choose the pianist with the perfect technique and bad musicianship, or the pianist who poured his heart into the music (assuming good interpretation) and fudged notes here and there?

[SteinwayTony]

Well, just let him have it... U should see the reason why no one is responding to him.
BTW, the guy who critized(?) the Tch1 is Nikolai Rubinstein, who was a VERY good friend with Tch. ANd I partially think he is right about Tch1, if u have read what he said CAREFULLY.

Actually wasn't referring to the Tchaikovsky comment he made.  The racism bit ticked me off.

[aquariuswb]

hmm... So if you were the judge, would you choose the pianist with the perfect technique and bad musicianship, or the pianist who poured his heart into the music (assuming good interpretation) and fudged notes here and there?

First of all, I'm not a judge. Second of all, technique is obviously vital, but only if matched with musicality. There are players who try to play pieces beyond their difficulty, and sometimes they are able to play all the notes, but they may not be advanced enough to play all the notes in musically interesting or mature ways... they're "bangers." I'm not saying LL is necessarily a banger -- and I'm not saying he's not -- but I will say that the performance in question is neither musically mature nor musically interesting, from a learned and discerning ear's point of view. This of course is subjective, but many agree with me.

If I were the judge, I'd choose the pianist who poured his soul into the music, hands down (assuming that the occasional fudged notes did not distract from the overall power and awesomeness of the performance).

[lenny]

i admire, and enjoy feats of technique for its own sake

of course when its actually good music it makes it even better

[Motrax]

We already have player pianos to show off marvellous feats of technique. It certainly is impressive to see the occasional display of Hamelin-esque ease with a notoriously difficult work, but in my humble opinion, a program of Chopin and Liszt etudes is simply not worth attending (and I've certainly seen my fair share of similar programs). There are too many beautiful - if technically simple - works which get neglected in favor of "crowd pleasers."

And there will always be pieces which seem easy to the listener, but are in fact very difficult and complex for the performer. Rachmaninoff's etudes (and a some preludes) are a fine example of this - of course there are difficult passages of chords jumping around, but the real artistry lies in painting the many intertwined voices in a melodic and natural way.

[lenny]

We already have player pianos to show off marvellous feats of technique.

WRONG

we have cars nowadays, but why do people still run races?

pianists are atheletes, artists, and musicians.

[lenny]

in my humble opinion, a program of Chopin and Liszt etudes is simply not worth attending (and I've certainly seen my fair share of similar programs).

why? some of the greatest piano music ever composed are in those sets.

[aquariuswb]

WRONG

we have cars nowadays, but why do people still run races?

pianists are atheletes, artists, and musicians.

Pianists may be athletes, but there's a difference between a competitive sport like racing and an artform like playing the piano. Not to bash racing, but who ever hears about the guy who finishes second? or third, or last? Now, there are piano competitions to be sure, but these are subjective things! It's not so clear and cut, and most people don't play piano to "compete." Racers race TO compete. The point of playing piano isn't to play as fast as possible or be the technician (although it obviously helps). Even if you don't have the chops to play Rach 3, you can still play some wonderful music and make it sound exquisite. I stick with what I said before: sheer virtuosity means nothing without musical maturity or taste. But musical maturity and taste can mean a whole lot without virtuosity -- as long as you can handle the pieces you are playing, you can make great music without having the precision and speed of Pollini or Hamelin.

[lenny]

Pianists may be athletes, but there's a difference between a competitive sport like racing and an artform like playing the piano. Not to bash racing, but who ever hears about the guy who finishes second? or third, or last? Now, there are piano competitions to be sure, but these are subjective things! It's not so clear and cut, and most people don't play piano to "compete." Racers race TO compete. The point of playing piano isn't to play as fast as possible or be the technician (although it obviously helps). Even if you don't have the chops to play Rach 3, you can still play some wonderful music and make it sound exquisite. I stick with what I said before: sheer virtuosity means nothing without musical maturity or taste. But musical maturity and taste can mean a whole lot without virtuosity -- as long as you can handle the pieces you are playing, you can make great music without having the precision and speed of Pollini or Hamelin.

i wont disagree about the musicality being of primary interest to most people.

but i will gladly sit through a piano speed race.

in fact i have submitted a request to the olympics comitee for the next olympics to have a 'chopin etudes' round

i expect vadim rudenko to be favourite in the 10/2 (right hand 4+5 finger hurdles)

 

i am serious about speed, i guess it also has to do with the fact i enjoy high-octane music in general.

[Motrax]

Though there is great music in some of those etudes, I can't realy imagine anyone playing Chopin's Op. 10 No. 1 for a particularly musical reason. Or 10-2, or Feux Follets, or any number of those pieces (I guess it's arguable which of the etudes have more musical substance, but some are definitely inferior to others from a musical standpoint). To program some etudes is fine, but to devote a whole concert to technical studies is not very different from a circus act. And I find the circus a good deal more entertaining than two hours of etudes.

(And as a side note, Pollini doesn't have the technique he's legendary for anymore. I saw him last November, and he fudged quite a number of quick passages. And in the end, I found his playing to be pretty boring in general... but that's another discussion altogether)

[lenny]

Though there is great music in some of those etudes, I can't realy imagine anyone playing Chopin's Op. 10 No. 1 for a particularly musical reason. Or 10-2, or Feux Follets, or any number of those pieces (I guess it's arguable which of the etudes have more musical substance, but some are definitely inferior to others from a musical standpoint). To program some etudes is fine, but to devote a whole concert to technical studies is not very different from a circus act. And I find the circus a good deal more entertaining than two hours of etudes.

(And as a side note, Pollini doesn't have the technique he's legendary for anymore. I saw him last November, and he fudged quite a number of quick passages. And in the end, I found his playing to be pretty boring in general... but that's another discussion altogether)

you call piano virtuosity for its own sake a circus act, and yet sprinters are watched by millions on tv for amazing feats of speed.
they are very highly respected, as much as a pianist with a great technique alone(without any musicality) should be.( a musical pianist with awesome technique of course should be respected even more).

chopin's 10/1 and 10/2 are very interesting examples, because their genius is in harmony and the polyphony (thats hard to bring out).

i would argue that chopin's 10/1 is of AT LEAST equal genius to the 1st prelude of bach's WTC

[aquariuswb]

you call piano virtuosity for its own sake a circus act, and yet sprinters are watched by millions on tv for amazing feats of speed.
they are very highly respected, as much as a pianist with a great technique alone(without any musicality) should be.( a musical pianist with awesome technique of course should be respected even more).

This is just stupid, man!

[lenny]

This is just stupid, man!

  why?

[DarkWind]

It's like saying sprinters should be praised for the fact that they could run.