Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Kit Armstrong

Just discovered this pianist while surfing. Anyone heard him play live or on recordings and what do you think?

An article revealing why "genius" seems an appropriate description of him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...rmstrong-playing-by-numbers-2219807.html

Taking lessons with Alfred Brendel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1I_dgJBpzI

Performing Mozart and Liszt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkO6sNaNoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi2Hr6-4Zeo

I met him and his mother when he was seven. I know his teachers at that time. Kit is the very definition of a genius.

Indeed he is a true talent. But if he is a genius, what does that make Mozart, Bach and Beethoven?

I'm pretty sure Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven didn't do advanced Calculus at age 8.

I thought we were talking about music.

Beethoven never even learned the multiplication tables. If he wanted to multiply 5 by 6, he had to laboriously count it out.

rrrrrright...

He has a problem with music that crosses the boundary into noise, citing parts of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring as offenders here. Doesn't this exclude much of what modern composers are doing, and incidentally line him up with Middle England? He quotes the psychologist Steven Pinker's view that music is auditory cheesecake. Armstrong goes on to say: "Every chef knows that a cheesecake is a work of art to be enjoyed, rather than something which must be 'interesting'."

A cheesecake?

Instant dislike for the little pillock now, grrr...

"Every chef knows that a cheesecake is a work of art to be enjoyed, rather than something which must be 'interesting'."

It is exactly this sort of attitude that I despise in critics of contemporary music. The implication being, if you think about it, that the feelings of enjoyment I experience when listening to something as crazy (!) as the Rite of Spring are not genuine, and that I've just convinced myself that I like it because I know it's intellectually sophisticated. It's so narrow minded to dismiss the opinions of people who find genuine enjoyment in something which you do not. Although, he is only 18 I suppose.

He is hardly alone in not liking music "that crosses the boundary into noise." And even in this little sound bite of a quote he articulates a coherent argument for a taste preference. One may disagree, but I credit him for going further than simply asserting that his preference must be universal just because it's his preference. Some people who post on forums should learn this ...

Then, of course, I read the truly salient fact offered up in the article ...

You seem to be developing a knack for posting the same link over and over. I don't know why, but I'm guessing that you are selecting links that are displayed in the flash player when the present video concludes. When you do that, the address bar in your browser doesn't change.

'Music that crosses the boundary into noise' is an incredibly subjective description, and I don't think he defends his opinion particularly well at all.

You may think what you wish, but you should realize that "he" is not writing this. "He" is being paraphrased and reduced by a reporter. If you expect a thesis in a bullet point you will always find ways to disagree. The point about music versus noise is indeed subjective. It's almost the definition of subjective. All that "I" was saying is that Armstrong offered a bit more than just his opinion. He offered -- well, as much as the reporter allowed him to -- at least a skeleton of a framework for defending his opinion.

I may have been a bit snarky, but Armstrong's two sentence blurb of an argument is probably better reasoned than 1/3 of the posts I see here at PW.

When you put quotations, you actually quote someone... I'm not in that business, but I know that much...

Given the amount of presence Kit is getting and the amount of fame and attention on him, I'd be much more careful in what I say if I were he!

Who cares about a PW post, when they've got their image on the newspapers?

If he really dislikes Stravinsky's Le Sacre, how does that square up with his teacher (and admirer...) Alfred Brendel who apparently loves Harrison Birtwistle and some other contemporary composers. Just compare Birtwistle's Earth Dances with Stravinsky's Rite, and the latter sounds melodious, harmonious, even tame.....

Stravinsky's Rite is melodious and harmonious. It is tame, it always was tame.

I remember as a lad hearing a fellow give a little talk about the Rite of Spring, saying that it gave rise to boos and riots ... and rightfully so (said my classmate) because it is absolute shite. Then I remember hearing the work in a concert with a certain degree of fear, and then being simply swept off of my feet and wondering what the fuss was all about. I think that Stravinsky and a whole lot of other people wondered what the heck the fuss was about.

In fact, what the heck was the fuss about? And how is it possible that a hundred years later a musician says something like this quote? My guess is that it isn't possible, that the journalist or the editor is trying to juice up the story a bit.

What argument? Armstrong gives no argument in this article.

I was also a little surprised by the Armstrong quote being discussed in the last posts. But I think just listening to his playing and everything else he says is enough reason to not get too concerned about this one particular comment of his...whatever he means or how fully it expresses his own thinking.

If one goes to his website and reads his own comments about some of his compositions, I think its hard not too agree that he's incredibly knowledgeable about music.

I think another interesting aspect about Armstrong is that, unlike most young performers, he seems most attracted to Baroque and Classical music vs. the Romantic music often favored by pianists this age. His concerto repertoire lists only three Romantic Concerti(Chopin 1, Grieg, Schumann) but 4 Bach,
5 Beethoven, and at least 7 Mozart.

That's not as uncommon as we generally assume. It's probably because we've so used to hearing the big late-Romantic concertos (Tchaik 1, Rach 2&3, Prok 2&3) played by prize-winners in the Tchaikovsky, Van Cliburn etc, that we think young pianists prefer them to Beethoven and Mozart. Many of the Leeds competitors and winners don't touch those repertoire: Perahia, Lupu, Dalberto, Uchida....

It's not only the winners of the big competitions who tend to play the Romantic warhorses but all the non winners in those competitions and most of the contestants in virtually every other competition.

Just look at the list of concertos played in most any competition. Also, look at the concerto rep lists for most pianists, especially the younger ones. I think you'll have a hard time finding another young pianist other than Armstrong whose concerto repertoire is 85% Baroque or Classical.

It depends on what the competition is. As I said, the Leeds, among the big ones, is one where pianists who prefer mainly the Austro-German classics go for. The first (Beethoven's Emperor) and second (B's 4th) prizewinners in this year's Leeds won thus. Andrew Tyson, who played Rach 3, took 5th place. Angela Hewitt won the Bach competition by playing, er.....

But most of the other well-known competitions do favor big guns, and pianists have to adapt accordingly. Some may then choose to return to the Viennese classics, e.g. Paul Lewis, who used to play Rach 3, dropped it from his repertoire in favor of Beethoven and Schubert.