Recommended Posts

If anyone is interested in knowing more about Kop's particular path as an artist, and her own reasons for her highly personal performances, then this is worth watching, particularly from about 13 minutes, when she talks about performing well known classical repertoire as an act of "dancing with skeletons". 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 minutes ago, martin swan said:

If anyone is interested in knowing more about Kop's particular path as an artist, and her own reasons for her highly personal performances, then this is worth watching, particularly from about 13 minutes, when she talks about performing well known classical repertoire as an act of "dancing with skeletons". 

.

Wow!  Haven't heard this one yet.

As Martin says, start listening around minute 13 and listen till at least around minute 17.  She addresses exactly what we are discussing in this thread.  Just as in her playing, she is eloquent and persuasive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

I’m enjoying this video, but I don’t recall the host introducing himself.

Philip, I know you're not a big fan, but I was struck while listening to this by the fact that what she's talking about is exactly the same debate as we have about new v. antique instruments.

What modern luthiers forget as they slavishly make antiqued bench copies of Strads is that at one time these violins were NEW - they were shiny, impudent and surprising. Similarly with Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, these pieces were the latest biggest new thing - when the pieces were first heard they weren't "classical music". 

So I think the idea to inject a quality of newness is a serious artistic endeavour, and not in any way charlatanism. I hope by listening to her talking about it you will accord her the respect she deserves.

Without giving the game away, I think her Beethoven cadenza clarifies a lot of the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

They were always classical music, you could say their significance was different.

 You're slightly missing the point, which is that to modern ears they are part of a canon or a well established repertoire with its own performance traditions. When they were first performed they weren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, martin swan said:

 You're slightly missing the point, which is that to modern ears they are part of a canon or a well established repertoire with its own performance traditions. When they were first performed they weren't.

I can give you an argument on that one, I think when these pieces were first performed, there was an expected style of performance, and overtime that became “settled law“ in the sense that anything else was “wrong.“

Meanwhile, to your previous comment, I can’t say I’m not a fan. I dislike that performance of the Tchaikovsky, and agree with many of the negative adjectives applied to it, and having heard it once, have no interest in a repeat. But I willingly withdraw my accusation of charlatanism, although that reaction is entirely understandable from anyone coming across the performance without preparation.

She comes across like a wonderful person, I… “Smitten” is probably not the word, but I am a fan of her path, if perhaps not her destination. I do stand by my larger comment, Although that requires a more in-depth response, and I can share that later. For now I will leave with the reminder that in the first portion of the video, she herself considered the question of how she would react to a student playing as she did, positive or negative. She did not answer it, but it is certainly a valid question, and implies that she herself is sympathetic to a negative reaction.

more later...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

I can give you an argument on that one, I think when these pieces were first performed, there was an expected style of performance, and overtime that became “settled law“ in the sense that anything else was “wrong.“

Meanwhile, to your previous comment, I can’t say I’m not a fan. I dislike that performance of the Tchaikovsky, and agree with many of the negative adjectives applied to it, and having heard it once, have no interest in a repeat. But I willingly withdraw my accusation of charlatanism, although that reaction is entirely understandable from anyone coming across the performance without preparation.

She comes across like a wonderful person, I… “Smitten” is probably not the word, but I am a fan of her path, if perhaps not her destination. I do stand by my larger comment, Although that requires a more in-depth response, and I can share that later. For now I will leave with the reminder that in the first portion of the video, she herself considered the question of how she would react to a student playing as she did, positive or negative. She did not answer it, but it is certainly a valid question, and implies that she herself is sympathetic to a negative reaction.

more later...

Glad you enjoyed the clip ...

Yes, I concede that when these pieces were written there must have been performance expectations (though in the absence of recordings we don't know what these were), but they were de facto not the expectations that Carl Stross and others would hold all performers to - his objections (legitimate as they are) are more to do with preserving a tradition and a work ethic (conservatism) than to do with music.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, martin swan said:

Glad you enjoyed the clip ...

Yes, I concede that when these pieces were written there must have been performance expectations (though in the absence of recordings we don't know what these were), but they were de facto not the expectations that Carl Stross and others would hold all performers to - his objections (legitimate as they are) are more to do with preserving a tradition and a work ethic (conservatism) than to do with music.

Oh I’m only 14 minutes into the clip, I was watching it before I took a shower, and my wife came over and looked over my shoulder, and she was supremely unimpressed and said, “hurry up and take your shower.“

She’s not much of an artist, God bless her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

They were always classical music, you could say their significance was different.

 

40 minutes ago, martin swan said:

 You're slightly missing the point, which is that to modern ears they are part of a canon or a well established repertoire with its own performance traditions. When they were first performed they weren't.

You aren't one of those guys who think today's pop music is tomorrow's classical music, are you?  Classical music was always a "thing", mostly originating in the Church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

Oh I’m only 14 minutes into the clip, I was watching it before I took a shower, and my wife came over and looked over my shoulder, and she was supremely unimpressed and said, “hurry up and take your shower.“

She’s not much of an artist, God bless her.

...hmm...but apparently she has a superb olfactory sense!!! Exactly how LONG have you been sitting watching videos???

:mellow:

...

...

:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

 

You aren't one of those guys who think today's pop music is tomorrow's classical music, are you?  Classical music was always a "thing", mostly originating in the Church.

Of course not - with the possible exception of Abba.

But you are making my point - the music we call classical music was mostly court music or church music. The notion of a classical canon is a bit more recent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rue said:

...hmm...but apparently she has a superb olfactory sense!!! Exactly how LONG have you been sitting watching videos???

:mellow:

...

...

:ph34r:

Oh that made me laugh. One of my wife’s favorite activities is to find me, having stopped in the middle of some thing, focusing on something completely different, at which time she slapped me on the head and get me going again. Remember, all of the greatest artists have ADD, but so do the Duffers.

The video was quite fascinating, and I was literally standing in the bathroom in the altogether, Watching this interview, until the boss called me back to the present.

ummm was that TMI?

Asking for a friend...

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Of course not - with the possible exception of Abba.

But you are making my point - the music we call classical music was mostly court music or church music. The notion of a classical canon is a bit more recent.

There has always been a division between music for the elites, and music for the masses, which is analogous to today’s classical and pop division. Even the Bach suites contain upper and lower-class dances. In the olden days though, peasant music, or “folk music” perhaps, was played on violin and recorder and such, the same thing on which we play it all today. The elite instruments, the Gamba, perhaps the lute and such, are obsolete.

That’s a history that somebody needs to tell, very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

 

You aren't one of those guys who think today's pop music is tomorrow's classical music, are you?  Classical music was always a "thing", mostly originating in the Church.

Another interesting question is how much “Pop music” is lasting. The nature of society today, and such that it is extremely easy to be famous, but it is no more easy to be enduring than it was 100 years ago.

I can think of many pop or rock pieces that I considered classics, that will survive and be considered true masterpieces, but taken as a percentage of the whole, that group is so small as to be statistically zero. But I am pretty sure the same thing can be said about classical music. That which survives is rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to digress ...

Kop's point is that all of these pieces, like all of those Strads and del Gesus, were at one point blindingly new and possibly shocking. It's not an artistic endeavour that all performers should embrace, but she is looking for ways to rekindle that sense of newness.

She's not really a classical musician, but to deny her artistry or her intellect would be just another kind of shallowness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Easy to digress ...

Kop's point is that all of these pieces, like all of those Strads and del Gesus, were at one point blindingly new and possibly shocking. It's not an artistic endeavour that all performers should embrace, but she is looking for ways to rekindle that sense of newness.

She's not really a classical musician, but to deny her artistry or her intellect would be just another kind of shallowness.

If that last bit was to me, I respectfully push back. I never denied either trait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PhilipKT said:

I think when these pieces were first performed, there was an expected style of performance, and overtime that became “settled law“ in the sense that anything else was “wrong.“

On the contrary, the great composers often caused a stir during the times in which they lived.  There has always been an "expected style" and great performers have always pushed against the boundaries in various ways whether it's Mozart, Beethoven, or Tchaikovsky.

From our vantage point, it's much easier to see how they are "within" the style of their peers, while from the perspective of an old fuddy-duddy of the time, it was wild and outrageous.

1 hour ago, Bill Merkel said:

You aren't one of those guys who think today's pop music is tomorrow's classical music, are you?  Classical music was always a "thing", mostly originating in the Church.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  Classical music was most certainly not always a "thing."  What even is "classical music" as you're using it here?  Music before what we call the Romantic era was much more utilitarian in philosophy.

How are songs from 2000, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600 1500, 1400, 1300, 1200... different from each other?

Isn't a song written today much more similar to Schubert or Dowland than a symphony or string quartet written today is similar to a symphony or string quartet written in 1800?

56 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

There has always been a division between music for the elites, and music for the masses, which is analogous to today’s classical and pop division. Even the Bach suites contain upper and lower-class dances. In the olden days though, peasant music, or “folk music” perhaps, was played on violin and recorder and such, the same thing on which we play it all today. The elite instruments, the Gamba, perhaps the lute and such, are obsolete.

That’s a history that somebody needs to tell, very interesting.

The rise of the violin has been traced convincingly alongside the rise of the sopranos in Italy.  I think I've read both Kristi Brown-Montesano and Susan McClary on the topic.

52 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

Another interesting question is how much “Pop music” is lasting. The nature of society today, and such that it is extremely easy to be famous, but it is no more easy to be enduring than it was 100 years ago.

I can think of many pop or rock pieces that I considered classics, that will survive and be considered true masterpieces, but taken as a percentage of the whole, that group is so small as to be statistically zero. But I am pretty sure the same thing can be said about classical music. That which survives is rare.

LaRue is a famous source to give you a sense of the scope of what "Classical" music was trash and has fallen by the wayside.  He catalogues over 13,000 symphonies just in the 18th Century.  Really gives you sense of the separation of wheat and chaff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stephen Fine said:

On the contrary, the great composers often caused a stir during the times in which they lived.  

I was talking about the performers, not the composers.

Regarding the stir to which you refer, It is fascinating to think about the conservatives who wrote great music of lasting value, such as Handel, Haydn Mozart, Bach, Mahler And the forward thinkers, Beethoven Wagner, Berlioz and so on. Genius need not be a member of either camp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.