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

Obviously in the Bach Competition or in a Beethoven Competition the pianists will play Bach and Beethoven, but it's not relevant to my point. There may be a handful of competitions, perhaps the Leeds, where the competitors play less Romantic Concerti than usual, but,if so, I think this is the rare exception. In fact, even in the 2012 Leeds Competition only 20% of the pianists had a Classical Concerto, almost exclusively Beethoven's Emperor, as their listed concerto.

What I really meant is, pianists who don't play big Romantic stuff won't be entering the Tchaikovsky (obviously) or Van Cliburn, but may well enter the Leeds - unless of course they decide to learn one or two of those pieces in the hope of doing well regardless. But we don't hear much about these pianists because those competitions are not as well-known. I get an annual diary that lists all the major (and not so major) competitions and their prize-winners over the past twelve months. Most of the winners aren't big names, and will never become big names (though there are a few pianists who evidently use these competitions to build up experience for the big ones). Unfortunately, winning a competition with a Mozart Concerto doesn't get you many concerts, or attract many concert promoters. Michel Dalberto won the Leeds with Mozart, but he isn't in the big league.

BTW, half of the finalists in the Leeds 2012 played Beethoven.

Why anyone would look at such a small sample size in the hope of reaching a significant conclusion is beyond me. You chose 6 pianists but I chose 60.

Even in the Leeds only a 20% percent of the pianists play Baroque or Classical concerti, and this figure would be less than 10% without the Emperor Concerto. Apparently the percent playing Baroque or Classical is even smaller in many other competitions. One only has to look at the online repertoire lists, both solo or concerti, of the huge majority of young pianists to see that Armstrong is the exception in terms of his repertoire.

I'm surprised Amstrong said that about Stravinsky. I saw a documentary about him about 1 year ago I think (on Arte TV), and he was shown rehearsing with a chamber music ensemble which played one of his work. One of the member said that there was a beautiful structure in his work, reminiscent of Ligeti, or something like that.

Now, if he said that, prodigy or not, he's wrong (I'm not saying this because I don't agree but rather because tons of musicians or great minds as great or greater than him would disagree, and pretty violently).

Maybe he's trying to appear anti-conformist to make his name more well known ?
If he doesn't play romantic stuff and is some kind of radicalist, he will less likely disappear in the mass of great young pianists who all play Chopin and Rachmaninov. I suppose this could be a strategic choice. When Schiff says something radical, many peoples react immediatly : maybe he's after the same thing (looks like it works...).

I think he just has opinions about music, and they have zero to do with any ulterior motives. I don't think his choice of repertoire(which doe include Chopin and Liszt) is strategic either. He just plays what he loves.

Stravinsly is beyond the discussion of genius/not genius. Armmstrong is yet to prove that he is something more than a competent precocious composer.

I always thought Le Sacre was really great cheesecake.

I think you mean Sacher ... oh, wait, that's not a good re-torte.

Oh, come on - it was not "tame" when it was premiered. Except in the sense that any notated music is "tame" by definition. But nobody had heard anything like it at the time (and it still packs a punch when done well). If one has any sort of historical imagination, it is not really that difficult to get some sense of how profoundly shocking those sounds and rhythms must have been to most in the audiences of the time.

But about the "fuss" - there was an interesting BBC docudrama some years ago that proposed that the fuss at the premiere was about the dancing and choreography, and not about the music. And that the fuss was, to a certain extent, preplanned. Looking at the recreation of Nijinsky's choreography, I can see why - it is a fairly drastic departure from what people's expectations of "ballet" might have been, not to mention disturbing even in its own terms.

wr: I should just note that about 10 years ago I also thought that it's amazing, it's stunning, and that it should provoce some angry feelings by everyone, especially non music lovers: I was dead wrong. I had it played back at a couple of non musician friends and all were perfectly fine with it, all of them thinking that it must be the soundtrack of some Williams film (Williams the composer, not the director). When I moved the 'ugliness' up a few notches I came back with some Ligeti (Atmospheres). Same effect. They thought that it was 'thriller' music and were not bothered by it, at all.

Try that with Kit!

The Rite was performed several times in England shortly after its premiere on it's own without the ballet, and it was very well received.

Nikolas, I recommend you try hitting them with an Utsvolskaya piano sonata lol

I think that I'd prefer a frying pan, or a hammer instead! :P hahaha!

To address your first point, it's beyond you but certainly not beyond me . As usual, in your insistence on scoring points, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but I won't belabour the point. Incidentally, I don't include Schumann, Chopin or Grieg concertos in my earlier post about big late-Romantic concertos: many classically-oriented pianists like Uchida and Perahia play them but not the Brahms or Rach etc.

I also appreciate the fact that you're in USA where pianists think (and are taught) BIG when they go to Julliard etc. In Europe, there're many, many young pianists who almost specialize in the Viennese classics, but you won't have heard of them because they don't enter big international competitions and don't play in North America. But there're many small competitions here that they can enter and stand a chance without having to play Rachmaninoff. I've got quite a collection of CDs by such pianists, and their biographies often list many competition finals and special prizes and the occasional win, but which don't get them many concerts or much publicity: their preferred repertoire obviously proves a drawback. There are also quite a number who appeared never to have entered any international competitions, only national ones. Among the big international ones, only Leeds give them such opportunities, which is why my point about what the finalists play is significant. When was the last time someone won in the Van Cliburn playing Mozart or Beethoven?

If ever Kit Armstrong decides to enter a big competition, it certainly won't be one in North America, but with Brendel's help, he likely won't need to enter one.....

It is interesting how your friends translated what they were hearing into "movie music", which may be what made it accessible. I know that sometimes people here in PW have said that they can tolerate "atonal" music if it's in a movie score, but they hate it in concert (and apparently don't find that incongruous in the least). And I love the fact that all of the music used in one popular 1960s American TV series ("Combat!" was the name) was entirely done in strict Schoenbergian 12-tone technique. It seems very likely that some people who thought they hated 12-tone music were perfectly at home with it in that context, but didn't realize that's what they were hearing.

But too, pop and dance music in the last few decades have changed perceptions a lot. Sampling and computer-based stuff has made a whole generation open to hearing almost any sound at all as being musical (well, that's true for the ones who are into it, which seems to exclude Kit). I've been amazed at how far some "pop" musicians take things. I remember hearing one DJ do a set that was so sparse and exquisite that it was almost like a Morton Feldman piece. And in the other direction, I've heard walls of noise modulated by filters that were beautifully done, too. It's a very different world, now.

wr: I fully agree with everything you say!

I think that I'm reaching a conclusion that the dressing up of music (in a concert vs in theaters vs in a movie vs in a CD vs in Mtv) makes up a lot for our reactions after all! At least for a lot of people!

I'd hate to think, though, what this means for 'pure music' (without the interaction with other media)... Something to think about hmm? If any kind of noise can be happily accepted in videos, computer games, media, etc, and not in the concert hall... what does this mean for concert hall goers and musicians alike?

I didn't used to think much of electronic additions to music (and still don't think much of pure electronic music) but must admit that there are some pieces which use them judiciously, like Hans Werner Henze's Tristan for piano, tape and orchestra, which I heard in the 'Hear and Now' contemporary music program on Saturday 24th on BBC Radio 3, played by Homero Francesch and conducted by the composer.

Incidentally, a lot of music written for horror films utilize atonalism and serial techniques.

The passage in the article seems to be an unfortunate instance of journalistic "telescoping". It is of course a very interesting question - what music does one not like? - but it does not have a short answer, and any answer is very difficult to explain. For any reason I invent as to why I do not like a certain piece of music, I can come up with more counter-reasons why I should like it, based on everything else I think I know about myself.

It seems that a great part of the skill of giving interviews is to able to give explanations without losing oneself in the web of contradictions that inevitably arises when one tries to give the "complete picture". That is, one must be able to invent concise heuristic arguments, in the scientific sense. For example, one says that the angle between the bonds in an ammonia molecule are smaller than in methane because the two floating electrons take up more space, while the real complete quantum mechanical picture is much harder to put into a soundbite.

So I found it interesting to see the responses in this thread. I certainly did not expect them, since I normally have trouble convincing people that I can accept any aesthetic preference other than the futurist's! But they actually made me think what impressions from such articles would be - in other words, I absolutely cannot "blame" you for misunderstanding. I have to imagine that Thomas Adès on Wagner was a similar situation.

That said, I realise that the Rite of Spring was a singularly unfortunate example on my part, particularly because of its status as a symbol of modernism. So I cannot blame anyone for thinking that someone who dislikes the piece dislikes it because of its dissonance (in the broadest sense of the word - i.e. including harmonic, rhythmic, etc.), since the piece has become so associated with those qualities. What actually "rubs me the wrong way" in view of the whole piece are the parts that seem to me like a one-sided narrow-minded celebration of brutality. An assault on the senses, in my opinion, has its place in art, but I do not like it when it is done for its own sake. Therefore I find it noise when the energetic passages with booming beats (can't think of a better description at the moment, do you get which passages I mean?) keep coming back in a rather undifferentiated way. I would wish for at least a glimpse into the "soul" and personality of the dancers/axe-swingers/executioners during the death-dance. As you must have noticed by now, my knowledge of the rites being depicted is basically non-existent. Maybe I have to develop an emotional understanding of and connection to the subject matter in order to appreciate the way it is depicted in music. Maybe the soullessness of the individual is an important part of that particular scene and I simply have not been able to imagine myself in that culture. Or maybe I have simply misunderstood the musical gesture, like an optical illusion I can't get rid of. Anyway, something in the taste disgusts me.

At the risk of belabouring the point, I would have the same problem with the piece if all chords were made consonant, all missing beats filled in, all instruments used in their correct registers (cf Saint-Saens' supposed reaction). In fact, that would do a great disservice not only to the piece but also to music history - and, for me personally, eliminate much of what I find attractive about the piece.

One thing I find very moving in music is the feeling that a new language has been invented, in which things are being expressed that were inexpressible in any other language. Here are a few scattered examples:
Bach BWV721 (unique in the genre?), BWV1018 3rd movement
Mozart O Isis... from K620 (not really a new language, but a distillation of an existing one which takes on new meaning)
JL Dussek development of 1st movement of Op 61
Late Liszt... just about anything
Szymanowski opening of Fontaine d'Arethuse
Stravinsky opening of Rite of Spring - yes, what else can express that incredible mood? ... and in general the wind "chord cluster" writing throughout the piece gives me goosebumps to listen to
Langgaard Music of the Spheres
Ligeti Musica ricercata #7 (I think it's #7 - the one with the ostinato in a separate tempo)
Holliger 3 pieces for violin and viola - ever imagined high floating wires illuminated in brilliant grey spotlights?
etc.!

Similarly, I could draw up a list of "noisy" pieces from every era. A future interview? ... after all, who does not enjoy trolling? I hope I am not trying to kill a sparrow with a cannonball here - but this discussion caught my interest, and wanted to try to "lay everything on the table". Re: electronics in music, can it be denied that there are moods, images, worlds that have only become accessible and expressible through the existence of electronic music? Why should art exclude this newly discovered world of perception, communication, and ultimately, dreamed existence?

Having been the recipient of that sort of telescoping on many occasions, I fully agree. I said as much in one of my posts on the last page.

In a recent interview, 25 minutes of conversation turned into two sentences. Journalists have to pick and choose what to use. What results is only as good as the story the journalist is trying to tell, and the integrity with which they excerpt what is often a much lengthier discussion.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

The music of Le Sacre that bugs you isn't a depiction of anything - it is music for dancing. And the dance itself isn't a literal representation of any real ritual sacrifice, AFAIK - Stravinsky said it was based on a vision he had (and there were no axes involved - the sacrifice was accomplished through suicidal dancing).

At any rate, it stands quite well on its own in the concert hall as absolute music, with no extraneous imagery necessary to appreciate it. I think its historical significance is based primarily on its musical content alone, not as accompaniment for the ballet with its attendant imagery.

Welcome, and thank you for taking time to clarify and expand upon the brief quote from the interview.
It is a great mystery. There are sensitive and intelligent people who like Tchaikovsky, for instance, and for one who does not, it is impossible to hear with their ears, try as one might. What is the seemingly inborn difference among people that makes some susceptible and others impervious?


Is the Mozart reference to Sarastro's aria, or to the priest's chorus, after Pamina's aria?