reblog_001.

So when I first started this blog, I remember (at least I think I remember) writing that I would try to pull out some of the better posts from my previous blog that my brother had so graciously hosted for me for a few years before I decided to make the switch, pull the plug, and move to a blog that, uh, looked at least a little more personalized than his bare-bones site allowed. And I mean that with no dis-respect (since he might just read this).

But anyway, along those lines and because of that link from my last post I found myself randomly hitting a month on the left sidebar (wow it is absolutely dumping rain outside my living room window as I sit in the corner typing this when really what I should be doing is working on my house and yes it was completely random) and came across this little post that will be my first reblog ~

03/06/2007 9:41pm

Miscellany -

Rachmaninoff's pianism is generally considered among the finest of the twentieth century. It displayed features characteristic of the Russian school of piano playing: effortless technical ability; interpretative freedom that is now frowned on; creative freedom in dynamics and phrasing.

Agreed. It is sensational.

I was reading some reviews of David Helfgott's playing (of Liszt's Etude No.3 Un Sospiro which in pure Liszt tradition is impossibly difficult and marvelously beautiful played in that link by Sviatoslav Richter who is arguably one of the greatest pianists of all time with few exceptions one being of course Wilhelm Backhaus). Got me thinking.

So I realize this is getting off-topic with the bit about Liszt ... as I was just earlier banging on the Bechstein this afternoon coming up with this admittedly random chord progression using augmented chords, lots of chromatic notes, flattening thirds to transpose major chords to minor chords (a wonderful transition but not to be overused) the vocal bending to match chords that don't belong so much that it took a bit to figure out what the key signature and tonic were (C♯ minor) and it made me think a little to the other week getting together with a couple of guys to run through some songs and one of them commenting about how it made more sense if the progression went a different way than I had written it but really why should it make sense?

There has to be a boundary between a musical progression that yes makes sense and one that completely does not and is impossible to follow but in between those two extremes is that 'effortless freedom' Rachmaninov displayed in his writing. That creative freedom of dynamics (lots of triple forte!) and phrasing - random notes, chromatics everywhere, difficult to follow. Difficult - not impossible - to follow. A motif that is beautiful and textured and chromatic. Rich. Lyrical. But with unexpected harmony, melody, counterpoint.

There was an evening years ago alone watching Shine stumbling over to the rented piano along the living room wall the room dark only halfway through the movie to discover a completely new method of composition based heavily on the use of chromatics and motifs that did not convey to any structure or preconceived rule (not that I necessarily knew of any rules being wholly self-taught for better or for worse times like these and certainly lately likely for worse). Back to that comment someone had left on a video of Helfgott playing that Liszt Etude that his life was transformed after hearing Rachmaninoff. Dynamic. Interpretive. Monumental.

Well, mine too. Mine too.