Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
onelife

Sgt Pepper: The Beatles Failure

Recommended Posts

they wanted to produce an album that could not be performed live...

 

[video=youtube_share;msYTb-F1jlI]

 

this is actually quite well done

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the Fab Faux do the Abbey Road medley? Its quite remarkable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Have you seen the Fab Faux do the Abbey Road medley? Its quite remarkable.

 

Fab Faux tours every year.

They played Sgt Pepper live in its entirety last year.

In past years they’ve done Rubber Soul and Abbey Road; every song; in order.

This year they’re performing the white album beginning to end (again).

No Beatle haircuts, boots or collarless jackets; just great studio musicians faithfully performing these iconic collections.

Edited by RogueGnome
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you seen the Fab Faux do the Abbey Road medley? Its quite remarkable.

 

I did see a video of them doing that in a studio setting. At first I was questioning why they would go through such effort to do something that has already been done. As the music progressed, however, I became much more appreciative and yes, it is quite remarkable.

 

That music has become like classical music where we go to the symphony to hear the works of the masters being performed, as written, by highly skilled musicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That music has become like classical music where we go to the symphony to hear the works of the masters being performed, as written, by highly skilled musicians.

 

I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage.

 

For example, I see Paganini as the rough equivalent of a Steve Vai or Miles Davis; Mozart is a bit like a Michael Jackson. How are Strauss' waltzes functionally different from modern dance music, or a Mussourgsky work terribly different from a Steely Dan album?

 

On second thought, there is a third difference - the performers. "Classically trained" players focus on very precise execution of existing works, while most people who perform contemporary material focus on stylistic authenticity and creativity/improvisation. The truly top players can do both, but most of us are specialists in one or the other.

 

In short, the stuff that still gets covered by high level players 20 years or more after release is generally just the best of breed from a given period, and this is completely independent of when it was written.

 

JMO, YMMV.

Edited by SteinbergerHack
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you seen the Fab Faux do the Abbey Road medley? Its quite remarkable.

 

Will Lee!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage.

 

For example, I see Paganini as the rough equivalent of a Steve Vai or Miles Davis; Mozart is a bit like a Michael Jackson. How are Strauss' waltzes functionally different from modern dance music, or a Mussourgsky work terribly different from a Steely Dan album?

 

On second thought, there is a third difference - the performers. "Classically trained" players focus on very precise execution of existing works, while most people who perform contemporary material focus on stylistic authenticity and creativity/improvisation. The truly top players can do both, but most of us are specialists in one or the other.

 

In short, the stuff that still gets covered by high level players 20 years or more after release is generally just the best of breed from a given period, and this is completely independent of when it was written.

 

JMO, YMMV.

 

The other difference I see is that music written before the recording era is open for interpretation while contemporary music much less so.

 

These Beatles acts are usually judged by how faithfully they can reproduce the original recording.

Edited by Vito Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage.

 

For example, I see Paganini as the rough equivalent of a Steve Vai or Miles Davis; Mozart is a bit like a Michael Jackson. How are Strauss' waltzes functionally different from modern dance music, or a Mussourgsky work terribly different from a Steely Dan album?

 

On second thought, there is a third difference - the performers. "Classically trained" players focus on very precise execution of existing works, while most people who perform contemporary material focus on stylistic authenticity and creativity/improvisation. The truly top players can do both, but most of us are specialists in one or the other.

 

In short, the stuff that still gets covered by high level players 20 years or more after release is generally just the best of breed from a given period, and this is completely independent of when it was written.

 

JMO, YMMV.

 

If you had wasted your college education on a music degree, then you'd understand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you had wasted your college education on a music degree, then you'd understand!

 

I got the first two years of a music degree, and qualified for a minor but didn't request it on my diploma.

 

FWIW, in my current playing, I ride the border between the two. Both my horn bands and my theater gigs have some degreed players who have studied performance, and many of them (not all, but most) cannot improvise to save their lives. We also have "untrained" players who always think in terms of making music, rather than in terms of following the chart/score. Players with both are rare and incredibly valuable.

 

Anecdote - about a year ago I was directing a theater gig, and I gave the instruction that we would do a playoff based on one of the "rock" numbers from the show, play the head, then two verses through with soloists each 12 bars, then the last 4 bars of the score as an "outro". The drums, bass, guitar and keyboard played it perfectly as described without even looking at the score; the concertmaster (lead violin), asked me if I would chart the playoff so that the string section could follow it. Different ways of approaching music - not good or bad, just different.

Edited by SteinbergerHack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw McCartney himself play Sgt. Pepper live (the first time he had ever done so in the USA) way back on Thanksgiving day in 1989...

 

[video=youtube;erx8K9mxI-0]

 

And minor point of correction - I don't think they ever intended for the album to be impossible to perform live - they merely realized that it would be impossible for them to perform some of their songs from the Revolver (and after) period live due to the cost of taking the LSO on the road with them and the technological limitations of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw McCartney himself play Sgt. Pepper live (the first time he had ever done so in the USA) way back on Thanksgiving day in 1989...

 

[video=youtube;erx8K9mxI-0]

 

And minor point of correction - I don't think they ever intended for the album to be impossible to perform live - they merely realized that it would be impossible for them to perform some of their songs from the Revolver (and after) period live due to the cost of taking the LSO on the road with them and the technological limitations of the time.

 

Was that at the LA Forum? I went to that show as well. Don't remember which night I was there, but it still stands as my most amazing concert experience ever. Realizing it was f'n Paul McCartney playing Sgt Pepper's was unreal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was that at the LA Forum? I went to that show as well. Don't remember which night I was there, but it still stands as my most amazing concert experience ever. Realizing it was f'n Paul McCartney playing Sgt Pepper's was unreal.

 

Yes, it was at the Forum in LA. They did more than one night there on the Flowers In The Dirt tour, but it was the opening night (for the American leg of the tour) that I saw them - Thanksgiving evening, November 23. I still have the ticket stub around here someplace... and yes, it was awesome to see McCartney playing Sgt. Pepper's live, along with some other Beatles songs I hadn't heard him perform live previously. It was one of my best concert experiences ever too, although I had also seen Wings previously on the Wings Over America tour - June 21, 1976 - which was also at the Forum. Ringo came onstage at one point, and the place went absolutely NUTS. :lol:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, it was at the Forum in LA. They did more than one night there on the Flowers In The Dirt tour, but it was the opening night (for the American leg of the tour) that I saw them - Thanksgiving evening, November 23. I still have the ticket stub around here someplace... and yes, it was awesome to see McCartney playing Sgt. Pepper's live, along with some other Beatles songs I hadn't heard him perform live previously. It was one of my best concert experiences ever too, although I had also seen Wings previously on the Wings Over America tour - June 21, 1976 - which was also at the Forum. Ringo came onstage at one point, and the place went absolutely NUTS. :lol:

 

 

Yeah, I may have seen the Friday show, but I can't remember now. Couple of friends and I drove from Vegas to see the show and spent what, was then, a ridiculous price for tickets. LIke $60 or something to sit on the main floor lol.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following Christmas (1990) my aunt bought me the album from the tour (Tripping The Live Fantastic), which I hadn't heard yet, and one of my cousins asked if we could put it on while we were all hanging out on Christmas day. And when the recording of Sgt Pepper came on, within about two or three seconds of it starting, I looked over at everyone and said "that was recorded the night I was there." They grabbed the CD jacket and checked, and sure enough, it was.

 

One listen, and I could accurately identify something I had heard only once, over a year earlier, within two or three seconds of the playback... :0

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage.

 

For example, I see Paganini as the rough equivalent of a Steve Vai or Miles Davis; Mozart is a bit like a Michael Jackson. How are Strauss' waltzes functionally different from modern dance music, or a Mussourgsky work terribly different from a Steely Dan album?

 

On second thought, there is a third difference - the performers. "Classically trained" players focus on very precise execution of existing works, while most people who perform contemporary material focus on stylistic authenticity and creativity/improvisation. The truly top players can do both, but most of us are specialists in one or the other.

 

In short, the stuff that still gets covered by high level players 20 years or more after release is generally just the best of breed from a given period, and this is completely independent of when it was written.

 

JMO, YMMV.

 

Meh...

 

Classical music is just Heavy Metal prior to electricity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And minor point of correction - I don't think they ever intended for the album to be impossible to perform live - they merely realized that it would be impossible for them to perform some of their songs from the Revolver (and after) period live due to the cost of taking the LSO on the road with them and the technological limitations of the time.

 

You are correct.

 

It was probably more about removing the restriction of "how are we going to play this live?" while they were producing a recording.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was that at the LA Forum? I went to that show as well. Don't remember which night I was there, but it still stands as my most amazing concert experience ever. Realizing it was f'n Paul McCartney playing Sgt Pepper's was unreal.

:D

I wouldn't go to the Forum because that's where the Lakers play.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Speaking of Sgt Pepper from start to finish, check this out:

[video=youtube;C4rluR_AhII]

Edited by Hoot Owl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got the first two years of a music degree, and qualified for a minor but didn't request it on my diploma.

 

FWIW, in my current playing, I ride the border between the two. Both my horn bands and my theater gigs have some degreed players who have studied performance, and many of them (not all, but most) cannot improvise to save their lives. We also have "untrained" players who always think in terms of making music, rather than in terms of following the chart/score. Players with both are rare and incredibly valuable.

 

As you say, the players with both are valuable but I don't think they are all that rare. I know lots of players who are competent with both approaches.

 

Chet Atkins described it well when he said "teach them how to play then teach them how to read" - which is my philosophy when teaching.

 

 

Anecdote - about a year ago I was directing a theater gig' date=' and I gave the instruction that we would do a playoff based on one of the "rock" numbers from the show, play the head, then two verses through with soloists each 12 bars, then the last 4 bars of the score as an "outro". The drums, bass, guitar and keyboard played it perfectly as described without even looking at the score; the concertmaster (lead violin), asked me if I would chart the playoff so that the string section could follow it. Different ways of approaching music - not good or bad, just different.[/quote']

 

You mention string section. Charts are useful and very efficient when you want to get an ensemble to play together.

 

 

I have a friend on island who is a highly trained classical piano player. Whenever we need someone to walk in and read complex parts we hire her and she nails it on the first try. Once, the two of us were backing up a singer at a Christmas concert and she was sight reading Vince Guaraldi parts, including transcriptions of his solos. At one point I asked her what key the song was and she replied "I don't know but it has three flats."

 

Although our approaches are quite different, she and I have mutual respect - I admire her ability to sigh read and she my ability to improvise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

I wouldn't go to the Forum because that's where the Lakers play.

 

 

Do the Lakers still play basketball? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do the Lakers still play basketball? :D

Two of them do. The rest, not so much.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the technology to do something like Sargent pepper live didn't exist as they were recording it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably more about removing the restriction of "how are we going to play this live?" while they were producing a recording.

 

 

Exactly.

 

And remember, live performances were no picnic for them at the time when they stopped doing them - the crowds, the screaming, the inability to go out and see the towns they were visiting, the threats from the wives of foreign leaders, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that the PA systems of the day couldn't keep up with the SPL levels from the crowds - they often couldn't even hear themselves as they were playing. They felt live performances were too restrictive, and they wanted to focus on working in the studio, which was a far more creative and less restrictive musical environment for them... and without the necessity of having to perform the new songs live, they felt free to try new things, without having to worry about how they were going to perform them live.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the technology to do something like Sargent pepper live didn't exist as they were recording it.

 

Only if they wanted to do the entire album in a note-for-note reproduction style.

 

But certainly they could have played a few of the tracks off the new album and a lot of older ones just like the rest of their tours if that's what they wanted to do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But certainly they could have played a few of the tracks off the new album and a lot of older ones just like the rest of their tours if that's what they wanted to do.

 

 

They retired from touring in August of 1966. Paperback Writer was the newest song they played on that final tour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do the Lakers still play basketball? :D

 

Sounds like Magic Johnson is blaming management, from a blub I saw in the crawl line, of, I think ESPN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They retired from touring in August of 1966. Paperback Writer was the newest song they played on that final tour.

 

Yes, I know.

 

I'm just saying that I don't think it was really the inability to recreate Sgt Pepper's that was the reason they stopped touring. Had they really wanted to continue they had plenty of material to tour with, including tracks on that album that would have sounded fine played as 4 pieces.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like Magic Johnson is blaming management, from a blub I saw in the crawl line, of, I think ESPN.

 

The Lakers are a train-wreck when it comes to management. Kinda feel sorry for LeBron, but not really. He should have known what he was signing up for.

 

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy watching the Warriors sweep the Trailblazers tonight. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly.

 

And remember, live performances were no picnic for them at the time when they stopped doing them - the crowds, the screaming, the inability to go out and see the towns they were visiting, the threats from the wives of foreign leaders, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that the PA systems of the day couldn't keep up with the SPL levels from the crowds - they often couldn't even hear themselves as they were playing. They felt live performances were too restrictive, and they wanted to focus on working in the studio, which was a far more creative and less restrictive musical environment for them... and without the necessity of having to perform the new songs live, they felt free to try new things, without having to worry about how they were going to perform them live.

 

That's why they stopped touring. They didn't stop because they couldn't play more complex songs live - that's an excuse.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Lakers are a train-wreck when it comes to management. Kinda feel sorry for LeBron, but not really. He should have known what he was signing up for.

 

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy watching the Warriors sweep the Trailblazers tonight. :D

Warriors - Bucks is going to be a show.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warriors - Bucks is going to be a show.

 

 

It will be interesting. No one has taken the Bucks seriously, it seems, but they are frighteningly good. Kind of reminds me of the Warriors when they first got hot a few years ago. They've not just been beating everyone but CRUSHING them.

 

But never count out the Warriors to just start raining 3's. And I can't even tell you whether it would be better or worse for them to have Durant make it back. Especially if he wouldn't be at 100%.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly.

 

And remember, live performances were no picnic for them at the time when they stopped doing them - the crowds, the screaming, the inability to go out and see the towns they were visiting, the threats from the wives of foreign leaders, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that the PA systems of the day couldn't keep up with the SPL levels from the crowds - they often couldn't even hear themselves as they were playing. They felt live performances were too restrictive, and they wanted to focus on working in the studio, which was a far more creative and less restrictive musical environment for them... and without the necessity of having to perform the new songs live, they felt free to try new things, without having to worry about how they were going to perform them live.

 

 

Those live shows must have been rough. I've never seen any evidence of foldback in any of the videos I've seen of their shows - and they were a vocal group.

 

Taking full control of the environment they were going to play music in must have been very significant for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

It will be interesting. No one has taken the Bucks seriously, it seems, but they are frighteningly good. Kind of reminds me of the Warriors when they first got hot a few years ago. They've not just been beating everyone but CRUSHING them.

 

But never count out the Warriors to just start raining 3's. And I can't even tell you whether it would be better or worse for them to have Durant make it back. Especially if he wouldn't be at 100%.

 

Ending the thread jack soon.:rolleyes::lol:

 

The Warriors look like a new team with KD down. The energy level has gone up. Still, when you need points, KD is money more than anyone else on the team. Maybe he'll play twenty off the bench. That would add a whole new twist for the Bucks to choke on. The return of Damian Jones should help the bench too - he seems to have potential.

 

Did you see Giannis last night? The guy's out of control...and predictable. You can tell he hasn't been playing as long as the rest of them. He's got so much size and talent thought that he's still better than anyone else on the team.

Edited by Hoot Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ending the thread jack soon.:rolleyes::lol:

 

The Warriors look like a new team with KD down. The energy level has gone up. Still, when you need points, KD is money more than anyone else on the team. Maybe he'll play twenty off the bench. That would add a whole new twist for the Bucks to choke on.

 

Did you see Giannis last night? The guy's out of control...and predictable. You can tell he hasn't been playing as long as the rest of them. He's got so much size and talent thought that he's still better than anyone else on the team.

 

I think we're cool with the thread jack because The Beatles played their last concert in San Francisco and the Warriors are moving back there next year. :D

 

But do they look like a new team? Or the old Warriors pre KD? But there's only so many points the team can score in a game. With KD in, the others back off, no doubt. Having him come off the bench would be interesting.

 

Giannis is going to be a monster for sure. And where did the Bucks even find him? I'm just hoping the Raptors take them to six or seven games and wear them down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we're cool with the thread jack because The Beatles played their last concert in San Francisco and the Warriors are moving back there next year. :D

 

But do they look like a new team? Or the old Warriors pre KD? But there's only so many points the team can score in a game. With KD in, the others back off, no doubt. Having him come off the bench would be interesting.

 

Giannis is going to be a monster for sure. And where did the Bucks even find him? I'm just hoping the Raptors take them to six or seven games and wear them down a bit.

Precisely. Warriors sweep Blazers. Raptors take Bucks to seven games.

Bucks have home court over Warriors.

 

I begged my folks to take me to that Candlestick concert. Didn't happen.:cry:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective, the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage.

 

For example, I see Paganini as the rough equivalent of a Steve Vai or Miles Davis; Mozart is a bit like a Michael Jackson. How are Strauss' waltzes functionally different from modern dance music, or a Mussourgsky work terribly different from a Steely Dan album?

 

 

 

JMO, YMMV.

 

I'm glad you used the words "rough" and "functionally" here. It would be more accurate to say that Steve Vai is the equivalent of Paganini but in a highly degraded cultural context. :0

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm glad you used the words "rough" and "functionally" here. It would be more accurate to say that Steve Vai is the equivalent of Paganini but in a highly degraded cultural context. :0

 

 

Really? I would say not!

 

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/niccolo-paganini

 

Paganini consciously cultivated an eccentric image, which combined with his almost “demonic” ability to play the violin to make him famous. As his renown spread, box-office receipts from his concerts grew. He wore his wavy blackhair long and invariably performed in a black coat, long trousers, and a colored waistcoat.

[...]

As the virtuoso pianist and composer Franz Liszt (1811–1886) later observed, “The excitement he created was so unusual, the magic that he practiced upon the imagination of his hearers so powerful, that they would not be satisfied with a natural explanation. Old tales of witches and ghost stories came into their minds; they attempted to explain the miracle of his playing by delving into his past, to interpret the wonder of his genius in a supernatural way; they even hinted that he had devoted his spirit to the Evil One, and that the fourth string of his violin was made from his wife’s intestines, which he himself had cut out.” Paganini’s sinister reputation was further secured in 1816, when he was accused of impregnating a woman half his age and then trying to convince her to abort the fetus. Paganini claimed he was innocent and being framed because he was rich and famous, but nonetheless he was fined and sentenced to a brief term in prison.

[...]

In 1833 he returned to Italy, and in 1836—suffering from ill health and exhaustion—he ceased performing altogether. He then embarked on an entertainment business venture in Paris, the Casino Paganini, where he and his partners hoped to combine gambling, musical performances, and dancing in one venue.

 

Which one were you suggesting operated in a "degraded cultural context", again? Paganini sounds like the prototypical rockstar to me....:idk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting. No one has taken the Bucks seriously, it seems, but they are frighteningly good.

 

Indeed. They went 4-0 and 4-1 in the first two playoff rounds, and are up 2-1 in the third. Brutally good.

 

That said, I would not suggest that nobody has taken them seriously. They had the best regular season record in the league, and you don't get there by luck.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. Warriors sweep Blazers. Raptors take Bucks to seven games.

Bucks have home court over Warriors.

 

Bucks will take the Raptors 4-2, and will have home court advantage against the Warriors. Can't wait to see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Did you see Giannis last night? The guy's out of control...and predictable. You can tell he hasn't been playing as long as the rest of them. He's got so much size and talent thought that he's still better than anyone else on the team.

 

Not just better than anyone else on the team....in the NBA. When he is on, he is unstoppable - Jordan-esque ability.

 

Next year, adding Zion Williams into the mix will make things very interesting.

Edited by SteinbergerHack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed. They went 4-0 and 4-1 in the first two playoff rounds, and are up 2-1 in the third. Brutally good.

 

That said, I would not suggest that nobody has taken them seriously. They had the best regular season record in the league, and you don't get there by luck.

 

 

 

 

No, but the sports media wasn’t taking them seriously. Small market teams don’t get the press and a lot dismissed them as too green and most expected the Raptors or even the Celtics to get past them.

 

Like I said, kind of reminds me of the Warriors of a few years ago with a young team they built through the draft and a lot of people didn’t think were for real

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my Niccolo Paganini story. The virtuoso violinist was put into debtors prison for a time. He did have his violin with him so he could continue to practice.

 

unfortunately the high string broke at some point and he had no replacement. So he had to play those notes way up the neck on the third string. Got rather fluent at it.

 

after his release Niccolo was giving a recital. Lo and behold the high string breaks during the midst of the performance. And he switched effortly over to continue to play out the piece way up the neck on the 3rd string when required.

 

audience gasps in amazement. They said he made a deal with the Devil, ala Robert Johnson I suppose.

 

Nope, he was merely prepared from his time in the jail cell with only 3 strings to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
after his release Niccolo was giving a recital. Lo and behold the high string breaks during the midst of the performance. And he switched effortly over to continue to play out the piece way up the neck on the 3rd string when required.

 

The way this story was told to me is that he would intentionally break strings as part of his act. That story apparently comes from a 1982 dramatization that may or may not be true.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paganini was the Jimi Hendrix of his day.

 

I don't think Hendrix necessarily wanted to be Paganini but I believe Yngwie Malmsteen did - or maybe he just wanted to be Ritchie Blackmore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one point I asked her what key the song was and she replied "I don't know but it has three flats"

 

Wtf??? You could have woken me up in the middle of any given night at around age 10 and asked me and I'd have said Eb before you finished the sentence! I find that difficult to believe in a "highly trained" performance pianist. Possibly because I went to a conservatory, which was a great deal more than "piano lessons", but a full curriculum - piano, choir, music history, music theory, solfege, etc... I admit to being rather unfamiliar with US/Canadian educational practices for child pedagogy, bur it seems to me that "highly trained" would imply all of the above, not just the ability to sight-read.

 

And I gotta disagree with Chet. I'd say "teach em how to HEAR by teaching them how to play AND read AND comprehend". All at the same time. I haven't taught full time for quite a while, bur when I did, that was my approach... I alwaya wanted my students to not just be able to play stuff back to me but to undersrand WHY they were doing it. Maybe that's why I alwaya preferred older kids and young adults as students :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paganini was the Jimi Hendrix of his day.

 

I don't think Hendrix necessarily wanted to be Paganini but I believe Yngwie Malmsteen did - or maybe he just wanted to be Ritchie Blackmore.

 

Ygnwie sold a LOT of Paganini CDs back in the day.

 

Not sure if that was a good thing? :idk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ygnwie sold a LOT of Paganini CDs back in the day.

 

Not sure if that was a good thing? :idk:

 

The irony is Paganini was the laat of the freely improvising soloists (that we know of) before the "tyranny of the composer" fully settled in, whereas to call what YJM did/does "improvisation", would be rather a huge stretch, imho.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The irony is Paganini was the laat of the freely improvising soloists (that we know of) before the "tyranny of the composer" fully settled in, whereas to call what YJM did/does "improvisation", would be rather a huge stretch, imho.

 

That Ygnwie was influenced by Paganini is fine. Even if he didn’t do the same thing with it.

 

That a bunch of young Ygnwie wannabes flocked to

Paganini in search of something they didn’t understand or thinking it was somehow cool?

 

it reminded me of all the drummers I knew who suddenly were reading Ayn Rand and not understanding a word of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

it reminded me of all the drummers I knew who suddenly were reading Ayn Rand and not understanding a word of it.

 

But that was because they're drummers. :0:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wtf??? You could have woken me up in the middle of any given night at around age 10 and asked me and I'd have said Eb before you finished the sentence! I find that difficult to believe in a "highly trained" performance pianist. Possibly because I went to a conservatory, which was a great deal more than "piano lessons", but a full curriculum - piano, choir, music history, music theory, solfege, etc... I admit to being rather unfamiliar with US/Canadian educational practices for child pedagogy, bur it seems to me that "highly trained" would imply all of the above, not just the ability to sight-read.

 

And I gotta disagree with Chet. I'd say "teach em how to HEAR by teaching them how to play AND read AND comprehend". All at the same time. I haven't taught full time for quite a while, bur when I did, that was my approach... I alwaya wanted my students to not just be able to play stuff back to me but to undersrand WHY they were doing it. Maybe that's why I alwaya preferred older kids and young adults as students :lol:

 

My piano player friend is a marine biologist. She's very intelligent, she probably took piano lessons as a child and responded very well to her teacher but music is not her passion - marine biology is. Her ability to play exactly what is written on the page is her strength and she does not have much experience playing with others.

 

I bring her up as an example of what happens when the teaching starts with people playing from sheet music. I've had students who carried boxes of sheet music with them which they relied on to play pieces they had been playing for decades. They came to me to learn how to remember what to play.

 

 

I do agree with Chet in the sense that I want my students to get a handle on their instrument before they become dependant on reading. One of the things I notice at the high school where I do workshops is that the students learn to play songs they like from watching youtube videos that show them where to put their fingers. They don't learn the instrument but they do learn to play certain specific pieces - maybe that's all they want. The challenge for me, a senior citizen, is to be able to reach teenagers with short attention spans in away that sparks their interest enough to want to dig a little deeper.

 

 

 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...