2012-08-26, 10:36 PM
Retalion Wrote:I'm glad we could come to an agreement on some things. As for your reasoning behind your denial of the second version of being simplified, I can accept that as well.
As for the whole thing about art, that's the thing. There are people like you and I who've had intensive training in music. And to us, everything looks juvenile and poor. And rightfully so. We've had years of training. They've only informally done it wherever they do it for short periods of time. It's expected that there's a gap between production. I tell that to my friends all the time about pop music and certain videos on youtube. Its really simple, and often devoid of talent. In fact, at times, from my (or our to some extent), it makes us want to tear our hairs out. I'm not saying criticism is bad or that you aren't allowed to criticize. I'm saying it becomes awfully painful if you were to point out every single poor demonstration of music/art with the intensity that you did. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your initial post had a "omg, no. I CANNOT believe you did it. I have a problem with the way you do things, and I take it personally (well maybe not personally, but I hope you get where I'm going)". What I merely meant is that there's simply too much bad art out there to point and scream and yell about. That it's not worth your time, because to be honest, they probably dont care. Perhaps it was worded poorly, but what I'm saying is you can't expect people to work on the level you do, as its unfair, as they have not had the training you have. You wouldn't expect someone who just started learning piano to play at a virtuosic level. Neither would you expect quality, university-music-school-level transcription from a bunch of amateurs (Rima and others, I really hope you don't take offense to that). I agree in the sense that I disagree with "If you have nothing good to say, don't say it", because I shoot straight to the point most of the time just as well. I just don't feel its fair to judge them and expect them to be at your level, that's all. And to be honest, it's kinda pointless, cause no matter how you tell these people, the level of production they give will probably never be up to your standards.
Once again on the range thing, I feel my point still stands: Changing anything about a piece (though technically transcribing it for piano is already changing something) changes the context of it from the original intention of the composer. Point taken that perhaps the other pieces are up there as well, as I probably didn't spend as much time looking at these scores as you have. That being said, I would just like to clarify I was not trying to name-drop. Fugues were an example of simplified practicing used earlier about simplification. As for the Elgar Cello Concerto, any piece would've worked for the context of my point of playing music which evoke certain emotions in a different key, register, or timbre. I just chose a cello concerto because it was extreme, as it sends the point more concisely.
As for your edit, I quoted the whole post purposely this time, though I usually don't, because if that's the way you prefer it, that's fine with me. You're exactly right. I prefer to address points over people, because when you get into people, it can turn ugly fast (imagine if I jumped on your first comment about my piano level and started ranting about qualifications and whatnot...). As I said though, I'm fine with both. Its nice to see people passionate about their art. But over-zealous passion for it takes the enjoyment out of it.
At this point, I'm glad the whole thing got sorted out
Since we're both more or less agreeing with each other at this point (or agreeing to disagree as it stands on some counts) and there really isn't anything else to talk about, I'd like to thank you for not getting fed up with my dumb tired angry self when I wrote that (errgh, looking back on those posts now there's a lot I'd change in my tone and otherwise).