Progressive Rock: How Does It Influence Your Being as Musicians?

I don't know much about Rock, but I can answer your last question. At least tell you what I think. I firmly believe that if the Great Musicians of the past had possessed today's instruments.... they would have truly enjoyed composing "Turkish things", that is... out of time... But that is exactly the point. Also regarding interpretation, we ask ourselves whether today we should play a Scarlatti sonata exploiting the expressive possibilities of the piano or relegate ourselves stylistically to the harpsichord style, almost imitating the sounds and effects of those instruments (that is, performing a historical reconstruction of the sound).

The fact is that Genius has no limits. Leonardo proves this to us, he who was capable of anticipating Everything. And so why couldn't it be the same for Music? Surely Beethoven, even as a pianist, would have fully realized and gone beyond the limits of the effects already contained in his music. His musical ideas enjoy wide limits and allow the performer to clearly understand that the Idea was much Greater than the realization.

Bach is very expressive. Not by chance he preferred the Clavichord and loved to write "Fur Klavier", which means "for keyboard instrument". As if he wanted to leave the choice of instrument undefined.

One could go on with many other examples. Don't you think?

Hello everyone, Paolo has opened a very interesting scenario that makes me think of a consideration I was making just yesterday. I had an audition for my diploma just a few days ago where I was asked to play the first movement of Beethoven's op. 110 without pedal because it was not indicated in the score!! I believe, therefore, that certain stylistic and interpretative choices should be made based on different contexts. The first is that: it is true, Beethoven did not indicate the pedal for the entire first movement, but it is also true that Beethoven's piano was certainly not like today's pianos. Beyond a discussion of transmission mechanics, the sound was much richer in harmonics, both pure and spurious, partly because the laws of acoustics used to design and produce modern pianos did not yet exist. In the presence of many harmonics, one certainly has a richer sound that is difficult to dampen with the dampers of the era; therefore, by playing very low on the escapement seeking depth, I imagine it was possible to legato by producing a "half-pedal" sound. A second choice regarding pedal use also occurs in relation to the acoustics of the environment. In a room with a lot of reverb, one tends to use the pedal much less compared to a room with very dry acoustics! When I took my eighth-year exam, the room had a lot of reverb, so I used much less pedal than I had used while practicing at home. Ultimately, I believe that regardless of pianos and environments, what drives the interpretative choice is always our ear, which is in continuous search of a sound image fixed in our heads. This is my idea... Probably if Beethoven had a modern piano today, he would have indicated the use of the pedal, staccatos, or dynamics differently.

Well, if we move to the "acoustic" plane, then it must be said that in Beethoven's time, the ear did not listen as the ear does today. To explain this, one must resort to some complex reflections concerning the ear as a sensory organ and the psyche which, like a MIDI output, decodes and transforms impulses and transmits them to the brain. The French are the pioneers of this study. I remember a beautiful study that was the subject of an exhibition at the Centre Pompidou in Paris. It resulted in a text that I possess: "Sound precedes everything and auditory space comes before visual space". These are some words from a chapter titled "Je n'ai jamais vu un son"—I have never seen a sound. I could cite other interesting studies on the subject.

However, the visual has taken over through the centuries. I always say the phrase: "When Man heard the grass rustling". In effect, originally his hearing was extremely refined and sensitive. If we go back to Beethoven's time, listening was certainly far more "selective" than today, and the audiometric listening capacity was at least 30% superior.

Now, when we talk about the piano pedal in those times, we must imagine how the instrument was constructed. Iron strings, a soundboard with little tension, smaller hammers. A more modest attack transient, with considerable development of harmonics after the hammer strike. Unrestrained sound. In fact, with this type of instrument, too much pedal would only ruin the tail of the sound that blends into the next, overly deceiving the sincere and rich expansion of the harmonics. Furthermore, the sound of those instruments was far lower, in terms of sound pressure—that is, volume—than a modern grand piano.

Today it is a different story. Over time, there has been an increasing need to stimulate the auditory sensory organs more and more, providing a striking, strong, stimulating attack transient that can be heard even in a large concert hall. The "private" (chamber) sound has become increasingly public (concert). Therefore, the thickness of the soundboard has increased, as has its tension; larger hammers and steel strings, perhaps oversized. Today, on many grand pianos and not only, we have a somewhat restrained sound, meaning that at the slight expense of harmonic development, there is a greater decay of the sound immediately after the hammer strike. A succession of sounds can be "pedaled" more abundantly without the danger of "blurring" and confusing the profile of the melodic line. Consequently, while remaining within a mental and real profile of legato, the pianist can treat the hand in a more relaxed way, without having to resort to some uncomfortable and tiring positions that are indispensable for "legato with fingers alone". The academic who suggests performing a first movement of Beethoven without pedal because it is not indicated, perhaps does not take this evolution-transformation into account and intends that using the pedal, even sparingly, would be equivalent to "betraying" Beethoven's writing. I do not agree. It is certain, however, that one must also deal with the "state" of the instrument. Playing on an out-of-tune, poorly intonated instrument, with notable timbral discontinuity across different regions of the keyboard, is equivalent to making any historical-compensatory pedaling unpleasant, thus provoking a rush toward unhealthy and falsely corrective remedies for a sound image that is anything but referential.

Eheh, I was practically certain of this answer from you, also because if we want to be honest, we created this site partly for this reason too, right Paolo? (to contrast the various shops, as we funnily call them). The state of the piano and, more generally, the piano itself, when viewed across different eras, has great relevance to the sound possibilities sought by the pianist. To say that one cannot blame the piano if a phrase does not come out as it should seems absurd to me... Especially when compared to other concert pianists like Massimiliano Ferrati who, having arrived early to his concert, we found with a hammer (tuning key) in hand tuning the piano and a punch for voicing the hammers! Not to mention Horowitz, who even dragged his piano around the world along with his tuner: the great Mohr! Or Benedetti Michelangeli, who would refuse to perform a concert, sending all the spectators home if the piano had not been well prepared; we could go on for a long time... The reality is that when you are among musicians, you should understand immediately when something isn't working because the piano has destroyed mechanics; it is a completely different matter to play in front of an audience where not everyone is a musician; therein lie the needs of great concert pianists: in that case, one cannot say at the end of the concert "a loud note and a soft note came out because the piano was not well prepared".

The main problem, however, is the total lack of constructive knowledge regarding the instrument and its construction history in past centuries. I understand there is a lot of mathematics that is not within everyone's reach, but integrals and derivatives aside, I believe that in the end, just a little knowledge of the instrument and common sense should suffice to imagine that perhaps materials science (which affects the choice of woods, and metals for strings and frames), acoustics (for the geometry and thickness of the soundboard, and the hammer's striking position on the string), and technology (which allows us to increase tolerances and decrease measurement errors in the construction of various parts thanks to numerically controlled machinery), were certainly not at today's level, and thus the product was also not at the level it has reached today. There is also certainly an auditory and psycho-auditory aspect that has changed, but it is already harder to get to that without external input...

Furthermore, we find ourselves having to interpret pieces for which no original recordings by the composer have reached us, and this works against us, precisely because we must derive all possible information from the score, but always keeping in mind the composer's idea in relation to the type of sound they obtained with their sonic sample; therefore, the supreme judge can only be our ear. Something different and interesting was listening to Bartok's Allegro Barbaro played by Bartok; one immediately gets an idea of the path to follow for interpretation.

This is what I think from the bottom of my experience; any criticisms or different ideas are always welcome. In the end, we are here to communicate and to continuously challenge ourselves, which is precisely what defines human intelligence...

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

I recommend this group:

Anyway, you guys are making too much of a big deal out of it! 😆

Nonsense aside, even ear sensitivity has changed over time, but I think musical language goes beyond auditory sensitivity: in the end, what the ear does is decode frequencies, the various ratios between them that exist from one note to another over time. Different sensitivities imply different feedback, but I wouldn't know if sensitivity leads to perceiving music "better". That's why, in my opinion, if the song I indicated above had been composed for lute, voice, and flute, it could be mistaken for a piece composed in antiquity: at least that is the sensation it gives me. What do you say?

For example, another piece that influenced me is this one:

I learned that dissonances "aren't so bad after all (on the contrary!)" and the concept of changing time signatures in measures and beats (which, with sight-reading lessons without practice, seemed pointless to me), as well as the fact that every time I listen to it, it gives me chills as if there were a monster behind me.

I can understand that this genre of music is not immediate: at least it was that way for me. On the first listen, I wasn't really convinced that it was a genre I would like, but now it is a part of my being as a musician.

Unfortunately, this genre is not very widespread, but I wanted to point out another piece to you:

The chorus was "borrowed" from here (in my opinion, there are signs of plagiarism):

My husband loves the Beatles, I don't know. I knew the Beatles through songs like "Obladi Oblada", "Yesterday" etc., but it was my husband who introduced me to this "Revolution 9". What do you think Mozart would have thought of such a composition?

It would have been enthusiastic!!!!!! Mozart was ahead of his time, like all geniuses, and I believe that if he had lived another two centuries, he would have assimilated all the great innovations and experimented with them. In the case of the Beatles, we are faced with 4 Colossi of Music. The harmonies, the lyrics, the maniacal refinement of the performance details, reserve a place for them in the History of Music, as composers and as performers. Even today, with modern means at our disposal, we are amazed by their sound quality and their musical inventiveness, don't you think?. Furthermore, it is not necessary to know everything about them to understand the height of their Music!!!!!

pianoexpert wrote:

It would have been enthusiastic!!!!!! Mozart was ahead of his time, like all geniuses, and I believe that if he had lived another two centuries, he would have assimilated all the great innovations and experimented with them. In the case of the Beatles, we are faced with 4 Colossi of Music. The harmonies, the lyrics, the maniacal refinement of performance details, reserve a place for them in the History of Music, as composers and as performers. Even today, with modern means at our disposal, we are amazed by their sound quality and musical inventiveness, don't you think?. Furthermore, it is not necessary to know everything about them to understand the height of their Music!!!!!

Mmmmmm, Mozart... But, Paolo, how much I would have loved to meet him in person!!! As, also, how much I would have loved to know geniuses like Beethoven, Chopin... Lennon. Thank you Paolo for your response, which both my husband and I enjoyed very much. 🙂

Mi unisco a questa bella discussione mensionando un altro famosissimo gruppo: i Pink Floyd !

Credo che i Pink Floyd fossero almeno 10 anni avanti nella ricerca dei suoni. Eccovi l'album the Dark Side of the Moon del 1973 (Tenete presente l'anno in cui è stato pubblicato questo disco !).

Track 1 (Speak to Me): 0:00

Track 2 (Breathe): 1:08

Track 3 (On the Run): 3:57

Track 4 (Time): 7:49

Track 5 (The Great Gig in the Sky): 14:39

Track 6 (Money): 19:23

Track 7 (Us and Them): 25:46

Track 8 (Any Colour You Like): 33:36

Track 9 (Brain Damage): 37:02

Track 10 (Eclipse): 40:49

Well, Simone, Pink Floyd would be worth studying in school, far from being nonsense!

I'm pointing out a live medley taken from the album "Octopus" by a band that I really like very much: Gentle Giant. To me, they are truly something indescribable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPA7F7SRx8

When I listen to progressive rock, I have the sensation of reuniting with infinity.

Cristina wrote:

My husband loves the Beatles, I don't know. I knew the Beatles through songs like "Obladi Oblada", "Yesterday" etc., but this "Revolution 9" was introduced to me by my husband. What do you think Mozart would have thought of such a composition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdPvN7HOLh8&feature=related

Here is Stockhausen; who, in an interview, claimed a more or less direct contribution to the piece, which Lennon never declared. There is a rather particular philosophy behind this track, musically speaking, which also consists in the valorization of chance as a generating element of art, according to a tendency already manifested by the Beatles since 1966 (see the use of tapes backwards or their randomly assembled snippets). The entire White Album (which is from 1968, not by coincidence), even if it cultivates the ambition of retracing the history of light music, is permeated with avant-garde. Lennon and Yoko Ono, a few months later, also made a solo album where they went even further, with pieces like "Two minutes of silence": two minutes of silence (!)...

Beatles and Pink Floyd, however, never played progressive.

camy86 wrote:

When I listen to progressive rock, I have the feeling of reuniting with the infinite.

 

I also like the genre very much, but I prefer Italian progressive.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Pink Floyd never played progressive.

In my opinion, you are wrong here... Listen carefully and then we'll talk about it again: Pink Floyd, by connotation, are identified with that movement. And of course, saying they are solely and exclusively progressive rock is limiting and anti-artistic, but to say they never produced or traveled within those sounds is quite a stretch.

camy86 wrote:

In my opinion, you are wrong here... Listen carefully and then we'll talk about it again: Pink Floyd, in terms of connotation, are identified with that movement. And then, of course, saying they are solely and exclusively progressive rock is limiting and anti-artistic, but to say they have never produced or traveled within those sounds is quite a stretch.

I know the entire Pink Floyd discography, from See Emily Play (1966) to The Final Cut. They were born in English psychedelic beat and expanded upon some of the stylistic elements suggested by the Beatles in their early studio years (1966/67), but progressive is something else: the founding work of the genre is universally considered to be "In The Court of the Crimson King" by King Crimson (1969); its characteristics (of the genre) lie in the use of complex and/or compound rhythms and in harmonic sophistication (often referring to 20th-century classical music); furthermore, and more generally, in the contamination with "high-brow" genres, including avant-garde jazz. Even the lyrics have particular characteristics, distant from "lysergic" culture.

Quanto ai Gentle Giant, direi che a partire da "The Power and the Glory" possono essere tenuti fuori dal genere.