Bahrami's "Bach" ... All the Infidel

Whoever read the interview given by Gatti to Corriere, on the occasion of the opening of Mito, will remember the not too veiled criticism regarding the descent into the pit by conductors who are too young and therefore not yet mature enough to tackle a certain repertoire.

http://www.luxgallery.it/mito-settembre-musica-2012-36069.php

He is not the only one raising criticisms ... let's hope that with the new year the veils are lifted and people start naming names

riccardoM wrote:

with a bit of snobbery, I say that this is the Bachian version of Allevi

I missed it... if we don't start speaking clearly, we risk re-evaluating Allevi himself... at least as a scapegoat he's not bad... always smiling... I suspect that even scapegoats aren't what they used to be....

Carlos wrote:

At least they are in time... (will they have the "click" in their headphones like rock musicians?).

What does that mean?

The conception of time in rock in general is not a matter of click...

Better to open a discussion about it. Otherwise, I'll go out of thread.

camy86 wrote:

What does it mean?

The conception of time in rock in general is not a matter of clicks...

It's better to open a discussion about it. Otherwise, I'll go off-thread.

It was a joke, never mind...

PS anyway you opened a discussion on rhythm, not on time. They are two different things.

I didn't know he had gone to the infidel.

I continue to maintain that a great coda for the Goldberg Variations is wasted.

foster12 wrote:

I continue to maintain that a long coda for the Goldberg Variations is wasted.

...not even

It depends

Carlos wrote:

It was a joke, never mind...

PS anyway you opened a discussion on rhythm, not tempo. They are two different things.

You're right: my apologies. Give your opinion there too if you want!

I don't find it bad at all. I like its originality.

@foster

I don't agree with this at all, but I respect your idea...

In your opinion, up to what point is “originality” tolerable before it becomes incompetence? It's okay to respect the ideas of others... but Nazism also had an idea behind it. Now I say, isn't it fair to discuss it?... ideas can change over time, right?

To me, it doesn't seem so original; to me, it seems more “dim-witted”... but I would like to change my mind

...help me...

Can I ask you to provide a proper American-style comparison between two Bach pieces played by someone you consider valid and Brahms?

Since I am not a big supporter of Bach vs. Piano, I would like you to explain better what you mean by incompetent.

Assuming the word incompetence makes sense in a musical context.

I leave the difficult task to someone else. But for comparison, I am giving you 2 links:

1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RN7AC0SGzI

2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEkXet4WX_c

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Three different things are being mixed together, namely: 1) Bahrami's pianism and whether it is more or less acceptable; 2) the relevance of performing Bach on the piano; 3) the fact that Bahrami is "incompetent" compared to... well, compared to what? Methodologically speaking, I think it is wrong to confuse different areas of discussion. Above all, the discussion regarding the philology of Bach interpretation on the piano should be set aside, otherwise the premises follow: if we say that "it is wrong" to play Bach on the piano, then automatically no further comparison is possible IMHO; and anyway, that wasn't the starting point. Everything else can be discussed, in my opinion, even by making comparisons, why not (but it is always very slippery ground, because personal preference comes into play, which often takes the place of objective relevance: I like so-and-so and I don't care if they are "more correct," do you know what I mean?).

Rather than reasoning through comparisons, why don't we try to reason through opinions...

First of all, I don't like Bahrami because, in my opinion, he is technically very poor. From the standpoint of pianism, I cannot understand whether he thinks of Bach on the harpsichord or if he thinks of him on the piano. In another post, a pianist addressed this comparison, arguing that if Bach had had a piano, he probably would have used all its colors. There are others who use the piano as if it were a harpsichord, with very few colors. The fact that Bahrami uses the pedal in Bach means nothing in my view; it is not this that makes one lean toward one choice rather than another, and he must also understand that the criticisms directed at him do not concern the use of the pedal in Bach but indeed quite different criticisms. Here, rather than saying whether Bach sounds bad or good, it seems to me that the issue is: how many are there who play Bach even better than him but nobody knows them? The point is that not only is he, in my opinion, undeservedly famous, but he is even considered to this day the greatest authority regarding Bach, and on this I disagree and pose, excuse the pun, here, the comparison with Gould. If he is the greatest expert and performer of Bach, who was Gould?? Jesus Christ?

Forgive any errors, but I am out with an iPhone.

Yes, let's drop the "Bach vs piano" issue which was just my modest opinion and deviates from the discussion.

Thank you micamahler for the comparison. I am convinced that this Brahmi execution is also relaxing.

I also, like Simon, think that it's not a pedal in Bach that can ruin his music. It can be the way in which it is used.

But if my interpretation of Bach doesn't please you, at most you save yourselves the $19.90 for the CD

I didn't understand if Brahmi only plays Bach in public. Do you have any news regarding this?

TheSimon wrote:

Here, more than saying whether Bach sounds bad or good, it seems to me the issue is: how many are there who play Bach even better than him but nobody knows them?

Eh... here it's not just a problem of music, but only of our country. Right, Simon?

To start with football.

TheSimon wrote:

how many are there who play Bach even better than him but nobody knows them?

Here my husband would respond with a terse "one also has to know how to sell oneself". Regarding the goodness or otherwise of the execution, I won't take a stand, not being able to judge.

zadra wrote:

Here my husband would respond with a terse ‒ "one also needs to know how to sell oneself."

...but come on, am I not alone in the world in thinking this way? With the means of communication we have today, is there a risk that someone plays better than Gould and remains misunderstood or even "unknown"?

...but come on...

I agree Fantasy, the means are there, one just needs to decide to exploit them. If by some miracle tomorrow I became a great pianist but remained locked inside my house, at most my neighbors would know. Same thing if I decided to maintain an obstinately elitist attitude. Participating in some television programs or making a few jokes to the audience does not necessarily mean "commercializing oneself" or debasing music. Obviously, those who manage to communicate better are favored, beyond talent. I understand the irritation of colleagues if a musician deemed mediocre becomes famous, but perhaps those better than him are getting their strategy wrong, no?