Stefano Bollani For Ravel

I found the orchestra to be very good, the conductor was quite good (lacked a bit of drive, but the detail was acceptable), Bollani was decent, although a bit colorless. Overall an excellent concert, with the pianist much more at ease with his personal jazz-style encore.

Obviously based on my opinion, someone else may be more precise.

Do you think it can be rewatched?

Is there a possibility to watch it streaming on the Rai website?

raffaeleb wrote:

Do you think it can be rewatched?

Is there a possibility to watch it streaming on the Rai website?

I don't know

It was an arrangement (very interesting, starting from improvisation with the statement of the theme at the end, as is often the case) of Trenet's Baisers Volés and Gershwin's I've Got Rhythm. At times the first was very beautiful, the second a bit too showy, and he could have spared the forearm clusters with the right hand; in a cordial and pleasant piece like this, they are perhaps an unnecessary forcing that, in my opinion, led him to spoil the atmosphere and that continuity that can exist between this Ravel and Trenet.

Bollanti is a very notable jazz pianist, but he went to take on a composition interpreted by figures like Michelangeli and Samson François; inevitably, he ends up appearing a bit colorless.

Moreover, he admits it and explains that he chose to highlight aspects of Ravel's music that have so far been somewhat in the shadows, such as the even slightly angular care for detail; obviously, he emphasized the link with jazz, which doesn't convince me much. For me, the essential point of reference is the young Stravinsky, combined with a way of seeing music typical of French culture at the turn of the two centuries; if contemporary jazz and popular music are included, just to add color; as for pianism in the strict sense, I don't see how one can dispense with the great instrumental tradition in Ravel, the one that culminates in Chopin and Liszt.

I must say that he convinced me more this evening than on the record, colors and touch aside, where I sensed a certain playing through gritted teeth, with little margin for error; but it was certainly just my impression.

As for Harding, I couldn't say. It seemed to me that the intent was more to find a good rapport with the audience (and they achieved it) than rigor and precision.

Thank you for the comments

raffaeleb wrote:

Do you think it can be reviewed?

I was interested too.

raffaeleb wrote:

Do you think it can be rewatched?

... is not available

...but some kind soul:

Stefano Bollani plays Ravel on RAI5 14/6/12 (part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU8aHL1qWcc

Sostiene Bollani - 2nd episode - Stefano Bollani: Ravel's Bolero

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

It is not related to yesterday but to the CD: http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/blog/997385/Bollani-che-suona-Ravel-Pi%C3%B9-marketing-che-musica.html

well....I don't like it....

I am sick....I listened to it again.....I would say it's bad.

A truly low-level performance......well.....let's hope he doesn't go on tour around Europe with this program....

A pity, I like Bollani very much when he plays his own music....in these contexts it is truly difficult to understand the reason for certain artistic choices...

I happened to hear him playing Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue in a similar context and I found it approximate....it seems to me that here too he is very close to that....

Ok Feliciano, but Bollani is also a pianist ... maybe he has his ambitions.

I wouldn't want to go back to the discussion of pianist vs. Jazzist ... but evidently there are substantial differences

Thanks for the links

Feliciano wrote:

i am sick....i heard it again.....i would say bad.

A truly low-level performance......well.....let's hope he doesn't go on tour around Europe with this program....

It's a shame, I really like Bollani when he plays his own music....in these contexts it is truly difficult to understand the reason for certain artistic choices...

I happened to hear him playing Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue in a similar context and I found it approximate....it seems to me that here too he is very close to that....

I had the chance to hear

Hi Jam

the ambitions are certainly respectable.....I believe each of us has them, and they are very respectable, this performance by Bollani is a bit mediocre.....

Apropos of "pianist vs jazz musician", I had forgotten to write that the wording doesn't seem correct to me, I think it would have been better to say

"classical pianism vs jazz pianism", which anyway, in my opinion, still doesn't quite capture the sense of that discussion....

I believe this version by Bollani is even explanatory of the different qualities that the two genres of pianism would have.....Bollani's classical "pronunciation" is as mediocre as Gulda's jazz pronunciation.....A bit like if Shakespeare were performed with a Little Italy or Bronx English accent.......perhaps....

or if 50Cent did rap with a diction to be envied by Queen Elizabeth.......

It simply wouldn't be congruent, and would have little to do with an operation of re:interpretation....you can't always pass one thing off as another....

ciaoo

F

Feliciano wrote:

Speaking of "pianist vs jazz musician," I had forgotten to write that the wording doesn't seem correct to me; I think it would have been better to say

"classical pianism vs jazz pianism," which anyway, in my opinion, still doesn't quite capture the sense of that discussion....

I believe this version by Bollani is even explanatory of the different qualities that the two genres of pianism would have.....Bollani's classical "pronunciation" is as unpleasant as Gulda's jazz pronunciation.....A bit like if Shakespeare were performed with a Little Italy or Bronx English accent.......perhaps....

or if 50Cent did rap with a diction to be envied by Queen Elizabeth.......

Simply, it wouldn't be congruent, and would have little to do with an operation of re:interpretation....you can't always pass one thing off as another....

Ultimately, everyone agrees but everyone is (perhaps) afraid to say it clearly: they are two different types of musicians and are not interchangeable... therefore, a jazz musician is one thing and a pianist is another. Regardless of the topic title

e

Bit wrote:

Ultimately everyone endorses it but everyone is (perhaps) afraid to say it clearly, they are two different types of musicians and are not interchangeable...

I agree...

Bit wrote:

...so one thing is the jazz musician and another is the pianist. Regardless of the topic title

I don't agree with you here....you cannot make a categorization between a generic musician of a musical style and a specific instrumentalist.....otherwise it would be like "Coltrane vs pianist", which in my opinion would certainly not generate a comparison between Coltrane and Argerich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQfApapo4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU8aHL1qWcc&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnvOxdYrVq8&feature=relmfu (I bis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i4xDT4IF0Y&feature=relmfu (II bis)

I don't see the need to necessarily compare Bollani to a classical pianist. For an ignorant person like me, it is a successful and interesting performance; then, of course, there have been classical pianists, and there are, obviously better ones, but he is this: a jazz pianist capable of also good/excellent classical performances. He attracts new audiences, he doesn't make any disasters, so what's the harm?

Hi Lestofante

forgive me but I deeply disagree with what you have written.

How is there no need to compare Bollani to a classical pianist? it is natural to compare the performances of great artists/musicians.

The point is that the performance was neither successful nor particularly interesting; on the contrary, I would say his performance is insufficient.

The disaster lies in the message being conveyed, exactly as with Allevi: being uncritical is the real damage we can do to music and its performers.

To convey a message that is also, or above all, educational/informative, something more is needed.

You do not bring a repertoire of that type to the public with such inaccurate preparation, especially when one is as well-known and as talented as Bollani is in his own jazz field.

Personally, I stopped going to hear Bollani in concert some time ago because I find his comic interjections, which never fail to appear in his performances, unbearable. I am not saying he should adopt a "Jarrett-esque" attitude, but at least I would like not to find myself in the middle of a television audience that talks during the concert and waits for nothing but the 'Zelig' moment and doesn't care about the music.

I hope that in the future he manages to return to the person he was just a few years ago, and that he can also be a comedian, even because he is extremely likable, but in appropriate and different contexts.

Bye

If Michelangeli had been on Rai5 to perform it, perhaps I would have selected that channel by chance with the remote control, but I would hardly have stayed to listen until the end.

Knowing that Bollani was there—whom I know as a jazz musician and as a TV presenter-joker (is that okay?)—I went specifically to Rai5 and listened to everything, including the encores (extraordinary). Can you imagine?

You can say 'who cares, great music is for those who understand music.' OK, but there are also normal people in this world.

On everything else, I might even agree.

Lestofante wrote:

You can say who cares, great music is for those who understand music. OK, but there are also normal people in this world.

The fact that you enjoyed the concert is not up for debate; on the contrary, I am glad it was seen.

I am absolutely not saying who cares, great music belongs to everyone, exactly like any work of art.

Personal taste, however, cannot be the parameter of judgment used in a critique, in any field, artistic or otherwise.

When expressing an opinion on the result of any activity, it cannot even be interpreted as a judgment on the person involved in that activity.

In conclusion, the fact that you liked it and that people listened to it is a great thing in itself, as is the fact that there is finally a TV channel that deals with culture, but this does not transform that specific event into a great performance.