Started by milk, October 27, 2019, 03:25:22 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Mandryka on May 10, 2022, 12:38:43 AMI think you may be being hasty about the Batagov actually, which seems at least rather beautiful, introspective and refined. But the Schlieme is quite another matter. Everything seems less subtle in terms of colour and weight than it was in his Frescobaldi CD. I just don't like it at all!
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2022, 01:14:42 AMIf you speak French and like Kim, he's on YouTube playing and talking about his transcription of some Bach, BWV 721. He comes across as sweet and serious, worth a listen if you like his stuff.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2022, 02:56:53 AMI meant Armstrong not Kim. Kit.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2022, 06:01:33 AMOne thing Armstrong says on the youtube is that sound is really important to him. Daniel Ben Pienaar himself doesn't really prioritise this aspect of the music. I kind of feel that Armstrong is right - he may have a bigger budget, and so can get better instruments and engineers.
Quote from: milk on January 25, 2023, 02:09:12 PMWhat is it?
Quote from: Mandryka on January 25, 2023, 07:47:21 PMhttps://static.qobuz.com/goodies/84/000154848.pdfTo transform many different rocks into a single organic alloy, to combine what seemed incompatible — and now it suddenly seems to you that it cannot be done any other way.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2022, 06:01:33 AMOne thing Armstrong says on the youtube is that sound is really important to him. Daniel Ben Pienaar himself doesn't really prioritise this aspect of the music.
Quote from: milk on December 16, 2022, 06:17:24 PMKit Armstrong sounds like he's got that level of genius if he can age well.
Quote from: Todd on January 31, 2023, 07:05:59 AMPienaar stated in an interview that sound is important to him, but not in the conventional sense. Conventional tonal beauty is not really what he is going for. He said something along the lines that it makes everything sound the same. I searched a bit, but couldn't find the interview online, but it's out there.
Quote from: Mandryka on January 31, 2023, 07:14:27 AMThis was what he said to me. . . it would be a mistake to assume that musicians have, by default, access to their ideal instruments, halls etc. for recordings. Almost no recordings nowadays are made under ideal conditions (if such a thing existed) unless the artist has real choice and access to corporate funding streams or private wealth (which, as you can imagine, I do not). Even then, we are still talking about the real world, and on the day of a recording any number of things may be short of just right. Of course, artists with 'corporate' level support might labour under different constraints (eg. big labels might limit repertoire choices, might have a 'house sound' or there might be weird power plays going on between grand old-school producers and engineers and aspiring musicians - something that often affects artistic decisions). But, that granted, it may simply be that certain artists' personalities and work do indeed fit naturally with how the more visible 'mainstream' things are generally funded and marketed now, and they may well have access to SOTA conditions.Using decent-ish modern Steinways is a more-or-less neutral choice - it is not that I particularly like them, it is just that they respond reasonably accurately to the manipulations that I am interested in: like I said, details of relative differences in voicing, pedalling, different kinds of vertical dislocation between hands or notes in chords or contrapuntal textures, varieties of articulation, emphases, which notes are stretched or compressed, where stress falls in a phrase, tempo and dynamic fluctuations etc. etc. - and of course in the ideas that can be expressed using those tools.(As I pointed out, some people find my obsessions with these things too 'interventionist', whereas others don't even notice them at all (perhaps because all they can hear is the 'de-prioritising' of blanket warmth and 'evenness' of the kind that a standard-issue, authoritarian, Rosina Lhevine-style technique would produce) and thus find my playing lacking in 'depth' (perhaps equating fleetness or speed with superficiality, to boot) - or boring, or outright incompetent. Others, still, find the detailing colourful and interesting, or (as you do, Mandryka) 'tense and turbulent'. That sort of spread is in the nature of aesthetic experience, as anyone who has eavesdropped on audience comments at any concert will know (unless an overwhelming consensus has previously been forged around the work of an artist - in which case many in the audience will predictably seek to perceive what they believe they are there to perceive)).
Page created in 0.030 seconds with 24 queries.