Still, I'd like to hear his treatment of Liszt's Mazeppa. I've seldom heard midi sequences this good. It's funny that we're musing over what amounts to be fantasy recordings and they still could be better.

Maybe.

But to me the issue is something completely separate from anything like that: how one represents it. Because, some people (me for example) would simply not be interested in spending more than a few seconds on the entire thing, knowing what it actually is. And I suppose there could be people who would be interested only if it is something like this.

So, to me the question becomes, what should we ever assume when a recording is posted? (Or, as Guy said -- very improperly, IMO -- "a performance.")
I thought we could assume it's a usual kind of faithful representation of sitting down and playing. I find that kind of thing interesting, and it's why I ever spend time listening and commenting.

If this isn't the expected and usual standard, then I'll have to adjust how I approach posted recordings, and maybe some other people will also -- including, especially if the poster is someone we're not real familiar with, asking exactly what it is before spending any time on it or talking about any impressions. (As Beet31425 wisely did here, by the way.)

To me, it's mainly about respect for the listeners, and not making us think it's something of interest to us when it isn't.

I thought he was being overly gentle.

A visit to the poster's website (if one exists) can be helpful as well !!

Bull.

We shouldn't have to do that to find out what something is.

A sublime performance! One question though: What kind of piano was this recorded on? It sounds to be quite old ( not that it's a bad thing).

"The composition mind" versus "the performance mind":

A few thoughts. Generally speaking, I used to have a "composition mind". I thought more about the composition than the performance. I didn't think very much about pianistic tone and color. I didn't have five recordings of the Beethoven concerti to compare. I only needed one recording if it was true to the composition. But this doesn't mean my musical world was simple: I thought about the compositions, why a particular note was changed in the recapitulation, how a particular texture gave rise to a devastating effect, why Beethoven didn't use 7 flats in op.110. I wanted to play the piano to live in these compositions, not necessarily to create nuanced performances of them.

I use the past tense because I'm tending more towards the "performance mind" these years. But I'm still mostly "composer", and I bring this up because I wanted to say that what Guy did (or what we think he did) is something that I used to think about doing too. There was a time when every recording of the Hammerklavier fell short of my internal ideal, and I wondered if I could produce a super-human electronic version that would in some sense surpass the rest. Even if I no longer feel the desire to create such a Frankenstein's monster, even if I now spend my energy plugging away at my pathetically human renditions of Chopin's easier etudes, I'm still partially sympathetic to the original motivation. Guy might have been more forthcoming about the nature of these performances, but I maintain that their inspiration and creation, if not totally pianistic, is very musical.

-Jason

I dunno - doing so up front would have considerably shortened the length of this thread !!!

Perhaps you oughta read the entire thread........

I'm interested in both. It's just too bad it was all Chopin.



I take everything posted with a grain of salt. Even videos can be edited. I can understand why your upset though, everyone else was instantly suspicious. Still, I agree he might have mentioned it since there was no way this one would go undiscovered. The only reason I can think of that he didn't was as Beet said, it's the world in which he lives and he is proud of his work.

The heck with Mazeppa - let's pull Islamey out of the volcano and see what he can do with it !!!!

Synergy 543:

Thank you so much for posting the video of Guy Bacos performing Etude 25/11. I looked all over YouTube and his website for a video performance and couldn't find it - I needed to scroll a few more pages I guess. You have convinced me. Guy Bacos is a very talented pianist. Like I said, he is probably the equivalent of the Japanese winner of the Van Cliburn who also programmed the Chopin etudes.

He is not, however, the person performing the etudes at the start of this post. The 25/11 (Winter Wind) is "digitally enhanced" and I assume they all are. In the Winter Wind the famous right hand passages explode out at you at a much faster speed. They ripple down and up the keyboard with a precision and an evenness that is uncanny - machinelike, really. The whole etude sounds very different from Mr. Bacos's performance where you can watch what he does. There, he looks and sounds like an excellent concert artist who has the human limitations we all must face when performing such a virtuosic piece.

Others here suggest that what Mr. Bacos is doing is nothing special with today's computer technology. I don't know about that aspect of it. All I can say is that I was quite sincere in responding I've never heard anything this musical when it comes to the Chopin etude's enhanced by computer technology. Mr. Bacos takes his formidable technical and musical skill, and adds to that a refined artistic sense of what these etudes should sound like if we could play them as perfectly as we hear them in our mind. In that sense they are fantasies, in a very good way.

We can argue whether Mr. Bacos should be more explicit in labelling the work he is presenting here, but I am glad to know of his accomplishments. As I said, he reminds me of the early work of Wendy Carlos, in the Switched on Bach days (when she was still Walter, I think). There should be room in this world for versions of the etudes done the traditional way, and versions done with computer enhancements. Proper labeling will certainly help, but I'm hoping to hear more of Guy Bacos's work in the future.

Part of the fun is, I guess, NOT revealing your process, although in this case it was completely obvious!

Is being up front about the process important? Obviously. Talking about piano "technique" where there was none is a waste of time.

Is computer Chopin musically valid? Well, of course it is, but many listeners can't stand the metronomic tempos, the stiff runs, and the fake piano sound--if these sorts of things are present, which they often are in midi music. Others like metronomic perfection, even in Chopin! And they're not troubled by the fake piano. It's a free country!

Are midi interpretations of piano works "pianistically" valid? That, for me at least, is the interesting question. I think they CAN be, at least in some instances, ie where the midi interpretation points the way to possible or yet to be considered and novel approaches to playing the music on the piano (the old-fashioned way), that might not have been discovered "at the keyboard," in the normal course of practice and analysis, as opposed to "at the computer". (The latter is musical analysis too, of course, but not always and not necessarily the same kind of musical analysis that happens at the keyboard.)

Listeners would be surprised to know, I think, that there are many, many piano "performances" on the internet that are utterly indistinguishable from the "real thing," so to speak but that are in fact midi interpretations.

This Chopin suffers, in my view, from the fatal flaw not so much of being midi edited--I have no problem with that aesthetically or musically--but from the flaw that it actually SOUNDS like its midi-edited! It's just my own prejudice...midi done so that it doesn't intrude on the music is fine by me, but I really can't stand it when I can hear it! Call me a midi snob, I guess.

JG

NOOOOO!

Reply to all:

I had a project with VSL to record all 24 Études with Vienna Imperial updated. I can do this because I do play them all "live", and already have most of them in recitals, not everyone has to believe this, but I'm no Pollini either.

My goal was to make the Études sound as best as possible and I did this to my personal taste, which may differ from traditional recordings. The question: If I manipulated the notes, ped, dynamics etc? Of course I did, but only to SOME degrees, more to enhance my intentions. My goal was only to give as much character and musicality to the piece as I could and make Vienna Imperial shine. Maybe some people don't like the result, that is their choice.

As to why I didn't mention it was done with Vienna Imperial right upfront? Because if I say that, there are all kind of assumptions, as I have read on many of these posts, the fact that it involves modern technology, even a monkey could do the same, and this ends up dismissing my piano skills and musicality. Eventually, after some comments I was going to mention that it was done using Vienna Imperial, but not from the start fearing pre conceived ideas about this. If you hate the performance or find it too this or too that, I'm fine with that, it is your right, but I don't think I was dishonest in any way. Do you honestly think with this advertisement http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/2035/1731.vsl I could keep this a secret? I wanted to test reactions at first, I think it is quite legit. I'm very proud of the job I did. Hope I was able to clear some things.

Thanks for the heads up, Guy!

You know the drill....many pianists get peeved when midi-work is not proclaimed as such, and from the roof-tops! The reasons are many: but the MAIN reason--let's face it--is that struggling concert pianists think it is a bit of a cheat. "I worked for years to get this technique; so who are you to pretend you've got the same chops when midi is doing all the work!!!" Or words to that effect.

For me, personally--and it's entirely personal--I care more about the product than the process. You know the arguments: "if it's beautiful, in the end HOW it came into existence albeit important is secondary."

There's a big caviat, however, which I've tried to allude to: CONTEXT.... For example: persons who are interested in piano technique will obviously want to know the process of creation, and undisclosed midi-editing may lead some folks to agonize over HOW certain technical feats were accomplished, which "feats" were in fact entirely computer-generated!!

I guess it's no secret that my WTC book 1 and everything else by John Lewis Grant (me) on the net is midi-edited. The pre-judgements (putting process ahead of product) of course DO affect listener's responses. But beauty, if it is perceived, or if it actually exists in an interpretation (a philosophical issue), does I think win out in the end. My WTC is simply an exploration of interpretation with light to heavy to complete midi-editing. Folks can take it or leave it. Naturally.

JG

Believing it is no problem -- but it's not the issue either. The issue would be, do you play them in a way resembling closely or even nearly closely what you posted? And the fact is that you do not.


You didn't say to what extent you manipulated the speeds.

And I would BET that you're greatly understating the extent to which you manipulated the dynamics -- as per what many of the replies have noted.


What about the fact that you manipulated some of us (or at least one of us) into spending time on something, in good faith, that we would have had zero interest if we'd realized what it really was?

What about the fact that you called it a "performance"?

This was a bad job by you, pure and simple.


In any environment, in addition to "pre conceived ideas" that you might feel are unfortunate, there are standards and expectations. I think you violated the usual standards and practices of the site, and thereby took advantage of us.

You fooled us -- knowingly and intentionally, which is essentially what you're saying here.


I know that you're talking about the technical aspects. But about the human aspects, if you're proud of the job you did, you're mistaken.

For what it's worth... I wouldn't frame it that way, because I'm a "traditionalist" who also cares more about the product than the process. Just for me, a good computer-enhanced product can't compare with a good traditionally-played product.


****



Also for what it's worth... I think your judgements are totally unfair here. I'm not a big fan of this kind of output, but (as I said earlier) I don't think that Guy mislead us (although it could have been more clear), and I think he can indeed be proud of what he's done. So... take that, Mark, you're wrong!

-J

"Performance"?

Oh, I don't know. I didn't feel particularly misled. I think Mr. Bacos was looking for an honest reaction of the performances without preknowledge that they were computer enhanced. As you say, Mark, if we had known in advance of the computer background to the music, we wouldn't have tuned in, and I guess Mr. Bacos wanted to avoid that.

In any event, I am glad he came back on to tell us what was done to the recordings. I think what he is doing is a legitimate art form - maybe a new type of art form in the piano world. Perhaps we can call them Computer Transcriptions. They are an idealized version of how we would like to perform these pieces if we had all the talent in the world and the best piano at our disposal. You can argue that the strict tempos are both a give-away to the process, and an unreal way to think about the music. I don't think they are that unreal; we all know of recordings where an artist plays scales or fast passages with impeccable cleanness and evenness.

Now if a Computer Transcription of the Chopin Etudes requires that the performer have a fundamentally sound way of playing the etudes in the first place, than that limits how many people are going to be able to present their vision the way Guy Bacos does. I guess that is why I found these performances fascinating to begin with. It helps that this is among my favorite piano music; I have over 30 CDs and records from differ artists performing the Chopin Etudes, and I would be glad to add this to the collection.

By the way, Mark, I don't think he fooled you for one minute. You may not have realized what he had done to his performance to enhance it, but your initial post with its lengthy description of what was odd about the music was what drew me to listen to these etudes. Your description was both detailed and uncannily accurate in identifying what was not quite "personal" in these performances.

One definition from the OED:

"performance: a person's rendering of a dramatic role, song, or piece of music."

-J

THERE'S A LESSON HERE: once you go down the midi route you CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!

What do I mean? I mean this: You can't say: "OH REALLY ITS MOSTLY ME, AND WHAT EDITING I DID WAS ONLY SUPERFICIAL!!"

You might play the piece in "live," but the moment you start nipping and tucking (metaphor deliberate), it's no longer "live"; more to the point, it's no longer "me playing, albeit with a few changes."

It's still "me" thinking musically... no question about that. But it sure ain't me "playing" with my own hands and my own mental/physical (hand/brain) mind working. So it's NOT "playing the piano" or thinking pianisticly in that sense... the one we're all familiar with.

Does that make it any less important "artistically" or "aesthetically"? Well, not for me; but having spent 20 years or so working on my piano "technique", I can totally appreciate the argument that it matters a whole lot artistically and aesthetically...especially in the case of Chopin!

(The musical thinking is, literally, in the "hands"; there is no separation between "technique" and "art"....they're kind of one and the same.)

JG

Guy,

I think you could take this testimonial from Numerian, with his permission, and add it to your website:


It captures wonderfully what you do and how well you do it!

The ONLY intention here was to make VSL Vienna Imperial shine. Have I succeed with this goal? I hope so. I think many people found it offensive for me to say, this is my interpretation, thinking it's 100% my interpretation, but once again, it was important for me to test some reactions without saying anything at first. And for the record, no, I'm not as good as these performances, but I'm still a pretty good pianist. There are more important things in life now than this.

The piano sounds fine, sure, but personally, I prefer the natural sound of an acoustic any day of the week. I don't have a personal problem with someone doing what you did, because I knew immediately that things had been edited (as I stated earlier the first two measures of 10/1 were enough), but not everyone will know such a thing and if there isn't any clarification, whether blatantly intentional or not, it's dishonest. I won't address the question of "interpretation". Those who know me here know my stance well enough.

Hmmm.... speaking as a midi fanatic....and as mediocre pianist who LOVES midi as a technology..... How can I say this ????

Here goes: Anyone who does midi has to BITE THE BULLET: It DOESN'T matter whether you're a terrible pianist or a Sviatoslav Richter. because midi is NOT about piano-playing... it's not about one's ability AT THE PIANO....

It's not any LESS valid for that .... it's just valid in a DIFFERENT WAY....

I think those of us to DO the midi thing have to acknowledge this.

Put in terms of 1st year phil logic: piano ability (however you choose to define it) is at best a "sufficient condition" of midi interpretation, but it is not a "necessary condition."

Not by a long shot.

Thank you for the kind words!

When it is Chopin, the poet of piano, the only thing expected to "shine" is his music.

Sorry, but in this regard, there isn't any success here.

I know, it is a bit harsh to say this after all your effort, but IMO, there is a strategical planning error with this project

regards,

You've hit the nail on the head.

The only thing is that many folks, including I'm afraid to say, "trained pianists," will be completely and utterly fooled. Certainly "Joe Public" won't have the faintest idea.

That would be fine, except that Chopin is NOT about technical wizardry.... Cortot proved that almost 100 years ago.

Edit... what I'm trying to say (obliquely) is that the midi-thing doesn't always reduce to Lina Lamont (Singin' in the Rain). Or at least it doesn't have to.

But the key thing is this: the burden to do something that's really (I mean as a work of art) better in some sense than a live piano recording is extraordinarily high. I don't think that burden has been met here. But it's a start.

Put it another way...

It's "art" in midi because of a good ear, a well-developed sense of recorded sound, not necessarily because of pianistic ability. As a midi-guy myself... I'm the first to back off from the notion that it has much to do with ability at the piano. The only tangeable connection I can think of is "having a good ear," which is mighty important in music generally, but by no means the whole picture.

JG

I think we can all agree if one listens to a lot of piano music, one could've easily spotted two things: it was a digital piano that was played and most likely sequences. But I think anyone who doesn't listen to a lot of piano music would honestly think these interpretations are real. This is truly commendable because these etudes don't sound mechanical at all. However, there's definitely something missing about them that I wouldn't want to listen to them more than once. It's good. Like a student who followed all his teachers directions in terms of dynamics and tempo. But any trained musician should be able to tell it's not real. However, it is commendable what you have done Guy!