My performance of the Chopin 24 Études just recently recorded.

Op. 10 No. 1 (Waterfall)
Op. 10 No. 2 (Chromatic)
Op. 10 No. 3 (Tristesse)
Op. 10 No. 4 (Torrent)
Op. 10 No. 5 (Black Key)
Op. 10 No. 6
Op. 10 No. 7 (Toccata)
Op. 10 No. 8 (Sunshine)
Op. 10 No. 9
Op. 10 No. 10
Op. 10 No. 11 (Arpeggio)
Op. 10 No. 12 (Revolutionary)

Op 25 No. 1 (Aeolian Harp)
Op 25 No. 2 (The Bees)
Op 25 No. 3 (The Horseman)
Op 25 No 4 (Paganini)
Op 25 No. 5 (Wrong Note)
Op 25 No. 6 (Double Third)
Op 25 No. 7 (Cello)
Op 25 No. 8 (Sixths)
Op 25 No. 9 (Butterfly)
Op 25 No. 10 (Octave)
Op 25 No. 11 (Winter Wind)
Op 25 No. 12 (Ocean)

I hope you enjoy listening and I look forward to your comments on the performance.

Guy Bacos
http://www.guybacos.com/

Guy,

You're quite an interesting musician. Not only are the full Chopin etudes a tremendous technical accomplishment, but I still remember your four-hand and eight-hand compositions you posted a few years back, some of the best stuff I've heard on this site.

If you want constructive feedback... I'll say that for me, there's something missing from these recordings. I'm not yet sure quite what it is. Can you tell us what the recording situation was: what kind of piano did you play, and how was it recorded?

-Jason

I'm surprised you're not.

Guy: Let me try to say what I think Jason might have been trying to say.

Just kidding. But I'll say what I'm hearing. (I didn't listen to everything but skimmed a fair amount of it.)

First of all, to say the obvious: You're an incredible pianist! Your mechanism is wonderful, your accuracy is unbelievable, and you have a good knowledge of musicianship and good sense of what kinds of things can make etudes interesting.

If not that you were SO good, I'd leave it at that. But since you are, we can get into finer points.

Jason mentioned "something missing." There are a couple of things I could put my finger on -- and I'm betting Jason will say, to a fairly great extent, yeah that's it.

-- The nature of your lyricism -- what you do with lines.

-- The nature of your drama -- what you do with dynamics, shaping, and 'surprises.'

And I think those things are somewhat related to each other.

Recognizing that I'm criticizing at a very high level, sort of like how we might quibble and nitpick about world-class pianists....I think you don't seem that comfortable and natural with melodies, and likewise about letting music speak for itself. You know what kinds of things to do, but it doesn't seem to come naturally, or else you don't trust what would just come naturally -- and so you "do stuff." And IMO usually it works! -- very very well, in fact. But after a little while, it becomes predictable and borderline tiresome; it's like, "oh, he's 'doing stuff' again."

I was struck by what sounded to me like a lack of lyricism and line in the openings of 10/3 and 25/1. These are pieces where the melodies are very prominent and very exposed, and to my ear, they sounded very "vertical" -- note, note, note, note; there isn't really a flow, and there isn't enough of a differentiation between melody and accompaniment. I think the reason it doesn't show so much in the other etudes is that there's more going on around the melodies (plus in most cases the melodies aren't as prominent), and so you have more opportunity to do things that make the music work.

I'm aware that what I said about "doing stuff" could be applied to HOROWITZ -- and has been, by his critics. I happen to love Horowitz's way with that, so it's not that I think it's inherently bad or anything. And to a great extent I love yours too! But the reason I found myself beginning to criticize it was that pretty soon it felt a bit unnatural and predictable, and I couldn't help feeling it's related to what I said about the melodic stuff and confidence about letting music speak for itself, and that it's sort of a compensation for those things. Or maybe it's just that you're sort of 'trying too hard,' plus that you've worked mostly on the technical stuff, drama, and surprises, and have been relatively neglecting some other aspects, like melodies.

Obviously, need I say, take this with billions of grains of salt. You're a wonderful pianist. I wish I played half as well. Heck, I wish I played a quarter as well.
But perhaps you might find some of what I've said relevant -- and I'll be interested to see if others have any similar reactions.

P.S. I wonder if part of what Jason was referring to, in asking about the recording situation, was the "tinny" sound. I didn't say anything about that because I assume it IS something about the recording situation, but I wonder if to some extent it may also reflect a somewhat-too-aggressive touch.

Comments on the performances later, perhaps. In the meantime I must say that I'm disappointed that a pianist with evident skill, talent and real musicianship would use those ludicrous and often meaningless "nicknames" attached to the majority of those Etudes. Shame!

I think "shame" is a bit strong.

But I did think they were pretty silly.

Think what you like. I said what I thought because I think the use of those nicknames trivializes the Etudes and that, to me, is a shame because they are such great works of musical art!

Hey, "silly" isn't enough? I thought it was a pretty good compromise!

What in the world are you talking about?

It might be the piano.

I know what you mean Bruce... shame that he couldn't think of nicknames for the remaining three!


op.10/6: "pseudo-etude"
op.10/9: "appassionata" (it is in F minor)
op.10/10: "the rotationary"

Mark-- I do agree with everything you wrote. I think that what you describe at the end as "tinniness" is at the heart of my feelings though... because I suspect that this was recorded on an electronic keyboard, and I suspect that's a big part of the critical part of my impressions.

-J

My initial impression as well - which was confirmed when I visited the pianist's website and discovered that the etudes (at least the recordings currently featured on his website) were recorded on a Vienna Imperial piano.

http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/84/1349.vsl

Of course, Mr. Bacos is an excellent pianist !!!!!

Ah... it does seem like Guy recorded these on a non-acoustic:

http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/2035/1731.vsl

Not to start the old acoustic-vs-electronic debate again, but I will say that I've always felt some "heart" to be missing from the non-acoustics I've heard, even the really impressive ones. And this blind test here (I didn't know the nature of the piano when I felt my dissatisfactions) confirms my feelings.

I don't mean to detract from Guy's outstanding musicianship. As I said, these are very accomplished recordings. And I have tremendous respect for his composing talent.

-Jason

carey: we cross-posted with the same info!

Have to agree. What a bizarre thing to get so upset by.

BruceD, whether they have a nickname or not, the Etudes are not trivialized at all by them. There are lots of nicknames for Beethoven's Sonatas too but nobody gets worked up over them. They are just shorthand. The requirements of the pieces are not influenced by the names they have.

OK -- I'm ready to quit now.

I surmised earlier that the piano might be what was missing from these recordings but I think it might even be more. People have hearts, not so with pianos. Some of these recordings seem to have almost impossible pedalings (or maybe polyphony limits) I wouldn't be surprised if these were sequences.

I thought someone was actually going to be playing here?

Please translate for us dumber ones.

Do you mean....not actually played, but programmed, sort of like a MIDI?

Yes. Not necessarily programmed, midi sequences can be recorded live, but these smack of some heavy editing.

Bruce didn't say that the etudes are trivialised by the nicks nor that the "requirements of the pieces" are influenced by them. He called the ludicrous, often meaningless nicknames exactly what they are...ludicrous and meaningless. The music itself is of course strong enough to withstand these stupid little labels, but using them certainly does trivialise any performance associated with their usage. What's bizarre is that any serious musician would NOT be irritated by their presence (let alone their existence).

Stores: Actually Bruce did say that, in his next post -- but the heck with that; I'm with what you're saying.


Damon: Looks like I got punked.
Guy might not think this is a prank, but to us, I think it absolutely is.

If this was "sequenced" (whatever that means) rather than played in the usual sense, IMO Guy's post was utterly dishonest.


GUY: You need to speak up.

The opus numbers were included. That makes the names superfluous, not shorthand.

Yup... these are midi for sure! Ergo: there's no way of knowing how much is "real" (actually played in raw and unedited) and how much is "fake" (heavily edited or completely sequenced).

Having myself done loads of this kind of thing with Bach's WTC primarily, I have to say that these are a cut above the norm: Chopin does not readily lend itself to sequencing, and even live performances that have been edited are usually easy to spot. Why? Well because as many of the above posts have said: they're oddly "unmusical," both in the rigidity of the tempi and in the fakeness of the piano tone (albeit sampled, not just synthed).

The sampled instrument used in this instance--which I haven't got time to look up--is to my ears merely "OK" but not exactly "convincing"! Most of them aren't.

Still, interesting work and above the norm for this sort of thing.

JG

And, besides the use of the nicknames and the possibility of them being ersatz, it would have been better had they been posted in Members Recordings.

Oh...I didn't see that. Oops.

I don't see it as what I would call a prank necessarily, but I knew what I was listening to within two measures and immediately hit "stop" and posted my initial statement above.

Pending what Guy might tell us....I'd say not at all anywhere.


Guy, looks like you've been stripped naked.

I don't know that he was being dishonest. A sequence is just a performance recording. Audio recordings are just as easy to manipulate. I think it would be pretty tedious to "program" (as in entering each note individually) the Chopin etudes. It seems he has an interest in computer instrument models which I think would be indispensable to a modern composer. I doubt that Guy thinks this is a prank, though it may have been a little sly to call them "my interpretations." These are still very good even for sequences, if that's what they are. My biggest problem is that these should be in the members recordings forum.

Interesting. If what johngrant says is right, (and as long as poor Guy doesn't speak up, I guess we're all going to speak for him)... it's almost like these recordings are as much a reflection of Guy's composing talents as his pure performing talents. (This view makes more sense if you think of composing as computer-aided studio editing, rather than the traditional venue of writing manuscript at a piano.)

Boy are we a demanding bunch!

-J

You don't think it should routinely be said, upfront, if a posted recording represents something other than actual playing in the usual sense, and that it's dishonest not to?

I do.

Some are, of course, intending to be dishonest in this way and some are not. However, I do, yes, think one should at least add something even if it's tiny print.

I'll agree with stores/Damon over Mark on this one! (Even though it's a matter of language, on which I often agree with Mark. )

While I think that, if these were sequenced, Guy should have said so, I don't think that it's necessarily dishonest, let along a prank, for him to not. He probably has a very different perspective, one more informed by pop music and studio editing software, than you do. Than most of us do.

-J