Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT7_IZPHHb0


BTW, Beethoven didn't name this "Moonlight Sonata" a friend of his coined the phrase about 4 years after Beethoven died, and the name stuck. Beethoven called "Sonata quasi una Fantasia".

This piece actually refers to the Moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvFH_6DNRCY

No, I got the point, just making a point of my own, and I didn't ask you to defend me. Now I just shrug off the attacks.

One of these days I'll post myself playing these pieces on Youtube.

thedoc wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT7_IZPHHb0


BTW, Beethoven didn't name this "Moonlight Sonata" a friend of his coined the phrase about 4 years after Beethoven died, and the name stuck. Beethoven called "Sonata quasi una Fantasia".

It's not a song, but it's a nice recording, although perhaps a little too fast. Shame it doesn't say who the pianist is.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT7_IZPHHb0


BTW, Beethoven didn't name this "Moonlight Sonata" a friend of his coined the phrase about 4 years after Beethoven died, and the name stuck. Beethoven called "Sonata quasi una Fantasia".

It's not a song, but it's a nice recording, although perhaps a little too fast. Shame it doesn't say who the pianist is.

I suppose it depends on how the music speaks to you. When I play it it's usually just a bit faster, especially in some places like from 2:37 to 3;00 on this recording. But that's just me, and I have heard the expression "Beethoven to the races", I just think each performer needs to feel the music for himself, and not play to suit someone else.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT7_IZPHHb0


BTW, Beethoven didn't name this "Moonlight Sonata" a friend of his coined the phrase about 4 years after Beethoven died, and the name stuck. Beethoven called "Sonata quasi una Fantasia".

It's not a song, but it's a nice recording, although perhaps a little too fast. Shame it doesn't say who the pianist is.

I suppose it depends on how the music speaks to you. When I play it it's usually just a bit faster, especially in some places like from 2:37 to 3;00 on this recording. But that's just me, and I have heard the expression "Beethoven to the races", I just think each performer needs to feel the music for himself, and not play to suit someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXjhc8EbY4I

Barenboim. His tempo here is perfect to me. I always love his Beethoven.


And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote: I suppose it depends on how the music speaks to you. When I play it it's usually just a bit faster, especially in some places like from 2:37 to 3;00 on this recording. But that's just me, and I have heard the expression "Beethoven to the races", I just think each performer needs to feel the music for himself, and not play to suit someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXjhc8EbY4I

Barenboim. His tempo here is perfect to me. I always love his Beethoven.


And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

Yes Barenboim's version was very good, I don't do the 3rd movement, but I'd like to.

I'll listen to Clayderman's version again with the music to see where he deviated. One thing about the 1st movement is that there are places that are identical and you can skip ahead or back if you choose. At one time I could do it intentionally and make a shorter version or a longer one if I wanted. The same should hold true for the 3rd movement.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote: I suppose it depends on how the music speaks to you. When I play it it's usually just a bit faster, especially in some places like from 2:37 to 3;00 on this recording. But that's just me, and I have heard the expression "Beethoven to the races", I just think each performer needs to feel the music for himself, and not play to suit someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXjhc8EbY4I

Barenboim. His tempo here is perfect to me. I always love his Beethoven.


And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

Yes Barenboim's version was very good, I don't do the 3rd movement, but I'd like to.

I'll listen to Clayderman's version again with the music to see where he deviated. One thing about the 1st movement is that there are places that are identical and you can skip ahead or back if you choose. At one time I could do it intentionally and make a shorter version or a longer one if I wanted. The same should hold true for the 3rd movement.

I doubt if Clayderman has ever played the third movement either. I can't think of any repetition in the movement. I'm not sure how you could shorten it, unless you cut the bars in half.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

Yes Barenboim's version was very good, I don't do the 3rd movement, but I'd like to.

I'll listen to Clayderman's version again with the music to see where he deviated. One thing about the 1st movement is that there are places that are identical and you can skip ahead or back if you choose. At one time I could do it intentionally and make a shorter version or a longer one if I wanted. The same should hold true for the 3rd movement.

I doubt if Clayderman has ever played the third movement either. I can't think of any repetition in the movement. I'm not sure how you could shorten it, unless you cut the bars in half.

Looking at the music, I can see several places where a clever pianist could skip ahead. First of all the 1st 64 measures repeat, so all that would be needed is to take the 2nd ending of that section and go straight to measure 65. In addition the 1st 8 measures, which I will describe as rapid, overlapping, ascending, arpeggios, repeat several more times in the piece, admittedly with slight variations, but one could skip from one to the other and only the expert would be able to tell. Looking at these runs there are several that end on the same cord, so going to a different part would be easy.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

I'll listen to Clayderman's version again with the music to see where he deviated.

The most obvious alteration is that he shortened it by about 20 measures, I got lost when he skipped to the end. Also there were several places where the right hand arpeggios were not as written, but they were minor variations. Adding the drums, strings and voices changed the feel of the music, and playing in a group like that means that time must be strictly kept, not allowing any interpretation of the tempo.

thedoc wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: And for a complete bastardisation of the piece, tacky beyond belief :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Ts_FfRU4

I'll listen to Clayderman's version again with the music to see where he deviated.

The most obvious alteration is that he shortened it by about 20 measures, I got lost when he skipped to the end. Also there were several places where the right hand arpeggios were not as written, but they were minor variations. Adding the drums, strings and voices changed the feel of the music, and playing in a group like that means that time must be strictly kept, not allowing any interpretation of the tempo.

Oh, I see.

thedoc wrote:

Looking at the music, I can see several places where a clever pianist could skip ahead. First of all the 1st 64 measures repeat, so all that would be needed is to take the 2nd ending of that section and go straight to measure 65. In addition the 1st 8 measures, which I will describe as rapid, overlapping, ascending, arpeggios, repeat several more times in the piece, admittedly with slight variations, but one could skip from one to the other and only the expert would be able to tell. Looking at these runs there are several that end on the same cord, so going to a different part would be easy.

There are no repeats in the whole movement. And why anyone would want to 'shorten' it is beyond comprehension. Why bother playing it at all. 'Only the expert would be able to tell'? You mean anyone who's actually listened to the piece?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Looking at the music, I can see several places where a clever pianist could skip ahead. First of all the 1st 64 measures repeat, so all that would be needed is to take the 2nd ending of that section and go straight to measure 65. In addition the 1st 8 measures, which I will describe as rapid, overlapping, ascending, arpeggios, repeat several more times in the piece, admittedly with slight variations, but one could skip from one to the other and only the expert would be able to tell. Looking at these runs there are several that end on the same cord, so going to a different part would be easy.

There are no repeats in the whole movement. And why anyone would want to 'shorten' it is beyond comprehension. Why bother playing it at all. 'Only the expert would be able to tell'? You mean anyone who's actually listened to the piece?

My copy of the score has a repeat after measure 64 that goes back to the 2nd measure, of the 3rd movement. The 2nd movement is full of repeats. Alfred Publishing, edited by Willard A. Palmer.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Looking at the music, I can see several places where a clever pianist could skip ahead. First of all the 1st 64 measures repeat, so all that would be needed is to take the 2nd ending of that section and go straight to measure 65. In addition the 1st 8 measures, which I will describe as rapid, overlapping, ascending, arpeggios, repeat several more times in the piece, admittedly with slight variations, but one could skip from one to the other and only the expert would be able to tell. Looking at these runs there are several that end on the same cord, so going to a different part would be easy.

There are no repeats in the whole movement. And why anyone would want to 'shorten' it is beyond comprehension. Why bother playing it at all. 'Only the expert would be able to tell'? You mean anyone who's actually listened to the piece?

My copy of the score has a repeat after measure 64 that goes back to the 2nd measure, of the 3rd movement. The 2nd movement is full of repeats. Alfred Publishing, edited by Willard A. Palmer.

So you were talking about the third movement. That explains the nonsense I was reading. I can't find my full copy at the moment, but yes, I played it years ago and it has repeats. There are no repeats at all in the first movement and it only has 68 bars in total. I mentioned that I doubted if Clayderman has ever played the third movement because you said that you hadn't, but other than that we were talking about the first.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZGsOYwYWGw&feature=kp

The only thing that puts me off the Rolling Stones is Mick Jagger's singing style. To me, he always sounds as if he's half joking. It seems rather self-indulgent to me. I think the songs deserve better.

That's just his voice, and his big unfortunately sneering looking lips, I am pretty sure the the half joking thing is unintentional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

One of my favourites. Sympathy for the Devil. That guy is onto a loser from the start after all God sets him up for the fall as he is of course omnsicient, and hence then he just uses him to make points in the coming years where he comes off looking like a chump, you have to understand how he was played as a sucker.

Blaggard wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZGsOYwYWGw&feature=kp

The only thing that puts me off the Rolling Stones is Mick Jagger's singing style. To me, he always sounds as if he's half joking. It seems rather self-indulgent to me. I think the songs deserve better.

That's just his voice, and his big unfortunately sneering looking lips, I am pretty sure the the half joking thing is unintentional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

One of my favourites. Sympathy for the Devil. That guy is onto a loser from the start after all God sets him up for the fall as he is of course omnsicient, and hence then he just uses him to make points in the coming years where he comes off looking like a chump, you have to understand how he was played as a sucker.

I've only recently discovered what a great band they are, as I've never really listened to them because of Mick's singing style. He's an egotist of epic proportions, and it comes through. I think I can get past it though for the sake of the great songs and musicianship I'm discovering.