A piece of music played without having had a "complete" experience of life is equally interesting, I think.. or to put it in other words, young people have an entirely different kind of life experience from the previous generation, not just by virtue of having spent lesser no. of years on Earth but also due to the highly evolving societies they grow up in. So their experiences are primarily different from those of old "mature" people and that brings a lot of independent validity to their interpretations. However, I'm speaking of young musicians who know what their life experiences have been and how exactly they inform the music. I'm not talking of something accidental or unintentional. Musical expression needs to be intentional. So I get what your question really is asking.


On the other hand (and in contradiction to what I just said):
If a particular piece of music is meant to convey passion and love (for a woman, for example), can a 9 year old highly intelligent musician convey it? If the music was composed with that intention (because intentionality is a huge part of composition, much more than performance I'd think), I think a 9 year old should be able to convey it without having to understand fully what it means to have loved. I know this is contradictory to what I said in the first paragraph, so I guess this is a really difficult question that I have no satisfactory answer to!

HIJACK ALERT!

Are you saying that the "intentionality" is inherent in the composition, and will be conveyed regardless of life experience?

Hmm.

I am trying to square this notion with Argerichfan's assessment of Lang Lang's playing of the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, an assessment that I agree with, and which prompted my question.

I have heard some very young performers play with convincing emotional intelligence, and some very old performers play with none at all.

I will grant you, liszt85, it is not an easy question to tease apart. Thank you for taking a stab at it, because you bring up several very interesting points in your first question, including the one about about generational differences. That brings a completely different aspect to it.

In any case, I think some degree of emotional intelligence, or, to be less jargony about it, at least some recognition for the part that emotional understanding of a piece informs the performance of it, is very important. For those listeners who are tuned into it, lack of understanding on the part of the performer often shows.

you have to admit, he has a nice haircut in the Hungarian Rhapsody movie. Better than Justin Bieber.

Wait! Wait! Didn't my last post bring it back to the topic! Sorta?

Justin Bieber spends a lot more money on his haircuts, $750 a crack.

At least he is a lot less pretentious than LL. I don't much care for JB's videos, as (a) I'm too old and (b) I'm not a female, but I'll take him over LL any day. There is a certain honesty about JB, and good on him.

And let JB have his time in the sun. When he starts to shave, well, it will be on to the next pretty boy. I don't think one needs to be homosexual or pre-adolescent female to appreciate JB. He is a boy of beauty. What's wrong with that?

Death in Venice is one of my favourite operas, and I think Justin Bieber would make a great Tadzio. Tadzio doesn't sing.

This may be MY favorite interpretation of the Heroic Polonaise.


And Hungarian Rhapsody 2:


These are two pianists I believe have better stylistic taste for the music than Lang Lang, and also who I believe are more technically proficient too.

Oh my god I cant believe one made a comparison to a classical musician to a 16 year old millionaire arrogant punk.

LOL

Let's put it this way: Would a Hungarian (or Eastern European) pianist play Liszt better than a Westerner or an Asian pianist? Would they be able to convey what's behind the notes more because they understand that part of the world/culture/etc.? The quick answer would be that "all things being equal" (whatever that could be - and they never are), yes! But in reality are Hungarian pianists the best Liszt interpreters? Some like Schiff don't even care for Liszt. On the other hand, would Schiff play Schubert worse than an Austrian/German pianist because Schiff is Hungarian? No - I find him the best personally. Was Richter in the wrong for wowing Russian audiences playing "their" music? Was Cliburn? See what I mean? It's a very hard thing to answer, precisely because there is no answer. It's a case-by-case thing. Rather, piece-by-piece.

IMHO, I think that to play something really well, one needs to understand not only the notes, the piece, the context, the intention, but also the environment/culture of the time the piece was written in. Because EVERYTHING is in context. I don't think you can know true intention w/o knowing the culture of the time. And that goes beyond music. It may involve knowing the poetry of the time, the politics, etc - whatever influenced the composer. Pieces were written for many reasons. Composers were complex people - a product of a time and place. Intentions were never simple, and things were done for a reason.

I said it would be difficult for a young performer to do justice to Beethoven and any of his 32 sonatas. Why? I just think they are the pinnacle of piano music. To really understand them, you not only have to understand Beethoven (a complexity in itself), but all that came before him. Because it's all in there - Bach, Haydn, etc. And this just takes a LONG time. As in years of study - and not just piano study. This is why many pianists do the cycles over again. They feel there is still something there to be discovered. It's not as simple as understanding and conveying say the emotion of love or hate or anger. It's very, very complicated. Do you understand orchestration? No? Well you won't understand many of the sonata forms of Beethoven. It's wild stuff!

So yeah, it's a complicated thing. But it's a different topic. As far as Lang Lang goes, I think he does some things really well, and some things not so well. But I can say the same for any pianist. He didn't just stumble on the piano scene by accident. You kidding me?? I can see why many don't like him, but I think it's for the wrong reasons in most cases. Classical musicians/listeners tend to hold on very tight and be very rigid with "their" art. If something goes against the grain, it's usually scoffed at. And I think it's time to re-examine those feelings, especially now. Music is a living thing. It's OK to have different interpretations. It's necessary. If not, the living thing will die.

check out my thread: Children and Artistic Maturity while Playing Piano
I added your question and some comments...

I'm not a fan of his music at all, but I don't think it's nice to call him an arrogant punk unless you can back that up. But he may be! I don't know much about him.

There are a couple other guilty pleasures I have in the pop world that I'm very very scared to mention. But in a much more general level, let's just say I like ANYTHING with a beat played through large speakers that makes me want to dance!

Back on topic, I don't prefer Lang Lang because his interpretations don't speak to me like many other pianists' and sometimes I don't feel like they're tasteful, although my judgement of taste is probably not the best compared to those who are more experienced/cultured/knowledgeable than I am.

one word (okay, four): banging to no end. That's all that is.

Are you people deaf??? Must be me then.

BS the way Rachmaninoff inserts his own personality into works and LL are completely different. And if you can't hear the difference then there's something wrong with how you're listening to it and obviously you must be looking for different things. In one case, Chopin would probably be happy, and in the other he'd probably be.. well, less than happy for sure. When I listen to Rachmaninoff I think "wow, the music is just gorgeous, he plays it like he loves itWhen I listen to LL I think "wow, he plays it like he loves himself and his ability." Nothing to do with the music.

Btw, how is complete disregard of the score "not a terrible crime"? That's like saying @%#$ you I'm going to do whatever I want and bash on the keyboard, annoncing that it's Chopin 2nd sonata. Then why bother having music schools? Why bother having lessons then, just play how you like - who cares about the score? I'm just curious as to why you think that. Sure, we can't do EVERY single detail by the score, specially since now we're required to memorize solo stuff, but the general feel of the piece at least should be there, with as much detail as possible and stylistic features appropriate to the music period (considering its limitations of course, I mean, seldom do people play Bach on a Clavichord or Beethoven on a fortepiano). Which I almost NEVER hear LL do. That's what I meant when I said it's too arrogant and it's too much of himself. That's why I don't think these are the wrong reasons. I mean, it's one of many.

Also, modern Ivo I wouldn't listen to much. But tell , what is disrespectful about this? This is why I don't relate them as committing the same "crime":

I think that is an interesting question and touches on some of the points alluded to, obliquely, perhaps, in this thread - or maybe it was elsewhere, as this thread seems to be veering off course at times.

Doesn't the answer - in part - come down to : "It depends"? It depends upon what is being played. I don't think, for example that one needs a great deal of life experience to play well Liszt's "La Campanella," Saint-Saëns Etude en forme de Valse, Op. 52, No. 6 or - horror of horrors! - to smash and bang one's way through that piece of tasteless bombast,"Islamey." A young "technician" could play these pieces as convincingly as they need be played, given that there is little, if any, depth to them.

That said, that same young technician may be hard-pressed to present a performance that I would find convincing of one of the late Beethoven Sonatas, the Brahms Second Concerto or the Goldberg Variations, even if s/he has the technique to play the notes.

I think, yes, that we could make a list of those pieces that are technically at the top of the heap that younger short-on-life-experience players could play. I've mentioned three of them without even having to delve very deeply.

What a surprise! I posted this and then found out I was writing in the "Lang Lang appreciation thread." I would have that that you couldn't get here from there. Who knew!?

Regards,

One of the things I like most about Lang Lang is that he seems to be a child at heart. The youthful enthusiasm he has in this video which was posted in the "amusing youtube videos" thread is inspiring and infectious. I'm not sure I've ever had this much fun playing the piano. Have you?

Well I am deaf in one ear as you know, but yes, there's a reason they call him Bang Bang. Push the pedal to the floor and play it loud...give the lemmings what they want!

Nice move, Milana! I'm going to reply to liszt85, alexb and BruceD, there, too! Thanks!

One criticism i do have of Lang Lang is that he's wearing a terrible shirt in that first photo. Sort of like Bertie Bassett.

Yeah, man, that's one of the reasons I can't stand him. He compares Prokofiev to a video game in that video. Come on!!! If that's great with you, it says something about your "musicianship"

interesting; in essence exactly what clara schumann said about franz liszt. the more things change, the more they stay the same, n'est-ce pas?

Yeah, we're deaf - like Graffman, Barneboim, Eschenbach, etc. Who wants to be like those guys?...You sound very young - in time you will grow to appreciate different things and not be so pretentious. You don't have to like Lang Lang, but please don't be so condescending/arrogant to the opinion of others.

Her and many others.

I dunno - since we haven't got any Liszt videos, I am not about to assume that what Clara didn't like about his playing is the same thing that some people here don't like about LL's playing.

Maybe. But maybe not. Think historical context, alexb! The criticism may be "different in kind."

EDIT: Ha-ha! wr said it first! ^^^

I'm not comparing Liszt and Lang Lang at all. Entheo's point (which I totally agreed with) is that this sort of silly/simple/etc. criticism existed before and exists now. I'm sure Liszt wasn't "banging away", and I know Lang Lang isn't either. Clara was perhaps jealous, etc. We don't know. Could be many reasons. Same with Lang Lang's critics.

Actually, I found "banging to no end" to be far from simple or silly. I found it to be incredibly efficient. And, it characterizes at least some of Liszt's compositions, imho, regardless of how they are performed. It also characterizes several Lang Lang performances shared in this very thread. How Liszt played his own pieces, as has been said, we will never be able to judge.

well let's put the speculation to rest re: what clara said, and i quote (from her journal, regarding liszt's playing of husband robert's genoveva): "It was so dreadful that I could only find relief in tears. How he banged the piano... I was beside myself at hearing His work so desecrated."

The huge majority of critics and great pianists of the time thought Liszt was the greatest pianist in history, so one pianist's view of Liszt's playing is not very important.

If you disagree with someone's criticsm of LL it doesn't automatically make it silly.

If you watch LL master class wit Barenboim, you'll notice he uses virtually none of the movements/facial expressions some object to in his playing. My guess(I haven't seen the video recently) is he also uses far less of the distortion he uses to his public performances.

I think you missed my point, but it's OK. I was defending Liszt, just like I am Lang Lang. Criticism that's nothing more than a quick jab - "banging to no end. That's all that is." - IS silly. Automatically.