Unpopular Opinions

[nodogen]

An "S" only as in the graphic sign S. Phonetically, though, not the sound that correspond to it, as in "speak" or "see".

The stumbling block for native English (or German) speakers in this respect is that they need two graphic signs to designate one single phonetic sound: sh. Russians or Romanians, on the other hand, having one single graphic sign for one single phonetic sound have no difficulty in grasping the difference between a phonetic S and a phonetic Sh and they (rightly) treat it as two different sounds needing two different letters. Complicated, I know, but it shows that a phonetic orthography is more logical and helpful than an etymological one.

Frankly, I'm just desperate.

[Parsifal]

An "S" only as in the graphic sign S. Phonetically, though, not the sound that correspond to it, as in "speak" or "see".

The stumbling block for native English (or German) speakers in this respect is that they need two graphic signs to designate one single phonetic sound: sh. Russians or Romanians, on the other hand, having one single graphic sign for one single phonetic sound have no difficulty in grasping the difference between a phonetic S and a phonetic Sh and they (rightly) treat it as two different sounds needing two different letters. Complicated, I know, but it shows that a phonetic orthography is more logical and helpful than an etymological one.

English speakers know perfectly well that 's' and 'sh' are different sounds. English is not alone in using combinations of consonants to produce distinct sounds. In Italian "ci" is soft (like an English ch) and "chi" is hard (like an English k), but "co" is hard and to obtain a soft sound before o the form 'cio' is normally used. Similar considerations for 'g.'

[Florestan]

English speakers know perfectly well that 's' and 'sh' are different sounds.

No doubt. But for some of them, for instance for the holder of the "unpopular" opinion under consideration, it is apparently difficult to make the difference between the graphic "S" and the phonetic "S": the former might be part of a graphic representation for a different sound than the latter. It is obvious that phonetically speaking Shostakovich dose not begin with S.

[kishnevi]

also Scarlatti and Saint-Saëns

Are you saying I have been pronouncing those incorrectly for fifty years.

(SkarLAtee/Sansauns, in nonstandard transcription)

[Madiel]

No doubt. But for some of them, for instance for the holder of the "unpopular" opinion under consideration, it is apparently difficult to make the difference between the graphic "S" and the phonetic "S": the former might be part of a graphic representation for a different sound than the latter. It is obvious that phonetically speaking Shostakovich dose not begin with S.

I'm worried now when you talk about phonetics yet continue to use conventional graphic notation.

[bwv 1080]

Are you saying I have been pronouncing those incorrectly for fifty years.

(SkarLAtee/Sansauns, in nonstandard transcription)

Yes, modern shcolarship has the pronounshiation as Shkarlatti / ShanShawns

[Florestan]

I'm worried now when you talk about phonetics yet continue to use conventional graphic notation.

Uel, Ai cud sertănli rait Ingliș foneticli, bat năubadi ud andărstend. 

(The above is the Romanian transliteration of "Well, I could certainly write English phonetically, but nobody would understand.")

[amw]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

[NikF]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

This kind of post - which if even in part is way over my head - is one the of the reasons I visit this forum. Insight gained/landscape uncovered - it all adds up.

[Karl Henning]

And: he keeps his cool!

[Florestan]

And: he keeps his cool!

He? His? 

You, Sir, are a sexist pig! 

[kishnevi]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

I don't remember who said it but I remember someone describing the Brahms First PC as a wrestling match between soloist and orchestra.

[NikF]

I don't remember who said it but I remember someone describing the Brahms First PC as a wrestling match between soloist and orchestra.

Yeah, or like two boxers who are not only evenly matched, but are throwing the same combos at each other. Of course, that's one of the reasons it appeals to me.

[Florestan]

I don't remember who said it but I remember someone describing the Brahms First PC as a wrestling match between soloist and orchestra.

Hugo Wolf wrote that from such glacial music one could catch a severe cold. 

[Brian]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

Well, I know what I need to listen to ASAP.

Think I saw Lazić play this live in London, but can't remember 

[Parsifal]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

I can make no comment on the difficulty of the piece, but I find the second PC of Brahms one of the most satisfying pieces of classical music there is. That said, I am interested to hear the transcription of the VC.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't remember who said it but I remember someone describing the Brahms First PC as a wrestling match between soloist and orchestra.

I suspect that claim has been made for many concerti.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This may be a popular opinion among some pianists, but Dejan Lazić's transcription of Brahms's Violin Concerto for the piano is more pianistic and grateful to play than either of Brahms's actual piano concertos.

No.1 plays like an orchestral reduction, all thick chords and octaves or string quartet like textures that simply don't make good use of the piano and its registers. And No.2 is just incredibly awkward, the first movement containing some of the most difficult and physically painful to play music in the repertoire, and takes a lot of effort to make sound good, almost like Brahms thought pianists have two right hands (especially with all the passages where the left hand has the same material as the right an octave lower. Pro tip: the left hand actually has the thumb on the opposite side). Since he played both concerti himself, and his solo piano writing is much more pianistic, I have no idea what he was thinking.... No.1 obviously originated as a symphony which could explain the orchestra reduction textures, but maybe in No.2 he was thinking of the piano too much as an extension of the orchestra or something? I'm not sure. That or his left hand actually had the thumb on its left side and the pinky on the right, who knows :p

Anyway. >.>

And yet somehow hundreds of pianists have managed to play both . . . .

[Ken B]

And yet somehow hundreds of pianists have managed to play both . . . .

Just not, we are told, Glenn Gould.

[amw]

Of course both concerti are playable, but they are not pianistic in the way e.g. Tchaikovsky's or Liszt's are. And they are considered quite difficult (I think Nelson Freire called Brahms 2 the most difficult piano concerto in the repertoire, for example, and he's played Rach 3).