Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Getting into New Age piano music...

Hey, I agree with you on his playing ability, but I don't think you should denigrate his songwriting skill, at least not on the sole basis of simplicity, lots of pop and rock are even simpler than the dreck he's putting out, but you don't hear people saying it's not legit music.

Even some of the best jazz improvs are based on very simple, but memorable tunes, why is that I wonder?

And, no I don't agree with you that random Hanon sounds better than his music. Feel for the music is a very real thing, and regardless of technical brillance or knowledge of music theory, if you haven't got the feel (ability to make the music resonate with your audience) you won't get good music...maybe that's one reason so many jazz pianists with degrees in music theory simply can't cut it as professional musicians.

So please refine your argument. Haha, I'd actually like to read you demolish this guy, but it can't be on lack of complexity alone...and Monica has a point, his tune is rather pleasant and relaxing.

Didn't say Hanon sounded better. I stated that even the first Hanon exercise, the most basic of exercises, is inherently more complex than any of his motifs or motivic development. The only one here deserving of praise is the piano maker. Could you imagine what "Sunrise" would sound like played on a console piano? It would sound like nothing at all because it cannot stand on musical merits alone. It's the sound of the concert grand piano that is appealing to his audience. I still contend that any pianist who can touch the keys with a few varying shades of dynamic nuance can duplicate his tunes (not exactly, but sound similarly), even if they never studied composition, and that any non pianist can do just as well, someone that never played the piano before, if applying a Suzuki-like method, if they have some musical sensitivity and are walked through some very basic movements.

It's pleasant and relaxing in the same way that one of those "New age" sound machines that plays the same synth-pad chord repeated, over a waterfall, surf, or rain forest background is. As I listen to his tunes, I getthe feeling that nobody is sitting at the keyboard.

Colin:

You ask if anyone else here has heard of Kostia. Yes, I have most of his CDs. I've listened to a lot of new age artists and he's at the head of the class, in my opinion.

One thing I'd like to add regarding some of the recent criticisms of new age pianists regarding the complexity of music, musical background and ability. For those who would bash new age artists, do you know everything about the musician you are bashing? Have you heard enough of the artist's music to be able to have an informed opinion of their abilities? Do you know what their musical background is? Do you know if they are involved in other types of musical endeavors?

I don't know much about the other new age artists, but I can talk a little about Kostia.

Kostia studied piano from age 7 to 24; attended the Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatory for 11 years, then 4 more years of study at St. Petersburg Conservatory. In 1982 he graduated the Conservatory with advanced degrees in: concert (solo) pianist, pianist for chamber ensemble, accompanist, and piano teacher. Since then he has worked on many projects as performer, arranger and producer. He has composed music for movie soundtracks and radio and tv commercials. He is a multi-talented, performing musician. For anyone who might like to hear a some of Kostia's other music of his (it's not piano), here's a link.

Scroll down and listen to: Close Without Touching
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000005P6S001008/102-1960769-7212963

Colin: You're looking for music for "Sunrise", I don't think you'll find it, unfortunately. In case you're not aware, there's another new age music book with two other pieces of Kostia's music, "Barcelona Girl" and "Cello Song". And if you like "Sunrise", you're sure to like Kostia's CDs which are available at cdbaby.com

Jeanne W

Oops, that link in my post above takes you directly to the sound sample. For anyone who may be wondering what CD that is - here's the link.

http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Olympi...mp;s=music&qid=1174090078&sr=1-3

I would have edited my original post, but for some reason I can't - I keep getting "timed out".

Jeanne W

Background doesn't matter. What matters is what comes out when you're at the keyboard. I have a solid background in music and as Michael Haberman has said about my technical ability, "I'm in awe of it. It's frightening", this coming from a pianist's pianist who has mastered Sorabji. So you can bet dollars to donuts that my background is going to come out when I play for an audience. I'm sure not going to sit down and play chopstix with my index fingers then stand up and bid everyone a fond farewell. If my background doesn't factor into my playing, then my background and resultant ability is of absolutely no value. Then I'm Babe Ruth giving up a major league career and leaving the Yankees to go back to St.Mary's and play in the sandlot with the kids. If Kostia can really play or compose, you certainly can't tell that from this pitiful rooker of "Aeolian Wind Chime music" he's playing here. It sounds like he's tuning the piano, not playing it.

Virtuosic1,

You should re-read thru the posts you’ve made here. Just for your information, this discussion has re-started on another forum due to the nasty tone you seem to insist on propagating here. Please, for all our sake, don’t try and find it.

To bad too. I’m sure you’re a good musician and might have actually had something constructive to add to the discussion, but your ego seems to be the size of the Brooklyn bridge and you insist on making sure we all know just how special you are.

OK Virtuosic, you’re the best pianist since Chopin, we believe you, now go outside and play.

How intolerant you are of other people's opinions, but I can well understand. Some folks don't like to hear the truth based in facts. The content of the posts are facts with a firm basis in music. Thusfar, nobody here that's rushed to the defense of this insipid music is willing to discuss the music analytically except me. Why is that? Let's discuss pieces like Sunshine from a compositional/theoretical standpoint examining his motivic and harmonic development of his opening materials. Show me musically, why you think his little nursery rhymes are the works of a groundbreaking, unparalleled genius.

"How intolerant you are of other people's opinions"

virtuosistic, i wholeheartdly agree with you.

But people in our times don't like virtues, they cultivate vices instead. They like paying for junk and even displaying it to their friends with proud. They actually pay for consuming greasy chunks of garbage at MacDonalds, dig lots of porn and listen to trash metal or rap or new age or whatever crap the drug they are taking at the moment makes them listen to. People on crack generally go trash or rap -- depending on skin color -- marijuana asks for a more "relaxing" reagge or new age. People on heroin go for atonal and serialism... that's like it really.

I think it's a sign of the times for Western civilization. Guess who are cultivating virtues instead these days? That's right, all those chinese virtuosistic violin players discovering a great past treasure from other civilization... what will they create from there on?

virtuosic 1:

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say and trying to understand your point of view. I am hoping for further discussion of this topic in a respectful manner. I must admit I'm disappointed in some of the ways you have responded. Bashing someone else's music is not very respectful, nor is it an effective way of advancing or promoting understanding of your thought process. I hope you'll continue to add to this discussion as long as you're willing to proceed in a civilized manner. I think you are.

So virtuoso, to continue - you say "whatever comes out" - the music - is the most important thing. We are in total agreement about that. IMO, background, training, ethnicity, nationality should not color a person's opinion of music.

You also say you are making value judgments on musical content. You then talk about your own abilities, how technically advanced you are and that comes out when you play and how it would be "of absolutely no value" to play something that doesn't factor in your playing, background and resultant ability. I would like to make sure I am understanding you correctly on this point…

Are you saying that playing music that is easier than the level you are capable of playing is "of absolutely no value"?

Are you also saying music that is not technically challenging and not so very complex is of little or no value?

Jeanne W

There are those who believe that anything other than classical music (or their particular chosen type of music) is garbage.

There are those who think music that is embraced by the masses is too topical and therefore justifies as/must be junk.***

Leonard Bernstein writes in one of his books about music fashions that come and go. What is considered banal and passe, overwrought and trite is often sooner or later applauded. He tells how anyone (i.e. he himself) who appreciated Tchaikovsky's music was looked down upon by "those in the know" in the musical conservatories, etc.

It is also my understanding that many high level musical institutions of today look down upon melodic music, it, I supppose, is too "palatable to the masses" and therefore, of little or no value. Or maybe it's considered too "derivative" i.e. anything that is new, no matter how ridiculous or outlandish, must be GENIUS. Music that is not easily accessible is held in high regard.

Sorry, I think all of these "judgment calls" are pretty pitiful, some of them inexcusable, some of them extremely offensive, some downright shameful.

There is such a thing as musical snobbery. I hope never to be accused of belonging in that category.

Jeanne W

**I suppose Rachmaninov's Concerto #2 by that thought process would be deemed garbage, since many of those who listen to classical music hold that piece in high esteem. Not so long ago much of Tchaikovsky's music was looked down upon. Musical fashions come and go, just like trends in clothing.

Ummm.... there's more than one kind of New Age Piano Music.

The kind that seems to be in question here is the improvisatory kind, as heard on Solo Piano Radio amongst other stations. While I agree that it sounds simple some of them, George Winston for example, have taken it to a high level of achievement. And there's others you hear on the same station that make you wonder why they bother. Which makes it the same as all music - for every virtuoso of (insert your own genre in these brackets - anything from New Age to Heavy Metal) there's about 200 who make you wonder why they bother.

But there's totally different orders of New Age Pianists, and the above are just the first. Think of the John Tesh/Yanni pianists (John Tesh wouldn't exist if he hadn't heard Yanni - he'd still be a weather forecaster on American TV!!) And Jim Brickman, and the gorgeous, in style and looks, Laurie Line (hope I've spelled her right). And checkout Robert Gass, amongst many others. All write carefully crafted, beautifully orchestrated but still essentially simple piano and strings/synthorchestra pieces.

Then there's two overlap artists. Mike Rowland and Phil Chapman. Phil's pieces are about 20 minutes long, excellently paced (in my opinion) and like pools, full of eddies, shadows and sunshine. Yet he can improvise with the best, as on Journey to the East. Mike's pieces are all improvisations. I've seen him in concert, he can just sit and play and not care whether there's 200 people or just 2 watching him! He lives in his music and his music lives in him. Yet they take you on a journey down a river in a strange land, and I always find myself crying when the journey ends.

I don't think simplicity in form is a crime, or should downgrade any piece of music. 90-mph with 2000 notes in doesn't make a piece any better than slow, simple and beautiful. Checkout any of Harrison Birtwhistle's music if you really want to hear a piano being played by pogoing cats. Or - and here I'll get yelled at! - Bela Bartok. That guy (a)must have had at least 3 extra fingers and (b) didn't care what he did with them as long as none of the notes truly harmonised!

Then think of Erik Satie's Three Gymnopedies. You can't get a lot simpler than those, yet their beauty haunts you long after your head's stopped ringing from a Bartok opus.

It's not the simplicity, it's how it's used.

I'll rest my case and wait for the response

Chris Burke.

No. But there comes a point, musically, for purpose of climax, suspension, then release of tension where some musical gesture worthy of the pianist's or composer's abilities is called for. If you're heavily muscled, it doesn't mean that you should stay flexed every moment of the day, but it's nice to be able to flex occassionally for emphasis, or why bother to acheive that muscularity. Doesn't mean you have to fling doors open with all your might, but when called for, you're able to. Same with music skills. If you're constantly playing and composing at juvenile levels when you're capable of far more, why bother. Like if Ruth decided he didn't want to hit homers any more and became a pinch-hitting bunt specialist. Music that constantly goes by at 12 mph quickly loses its charm, even if beautiful melodically. I can't think of one multi-movement symphonic piece where all the movements are adagio.

virtuosic1:

huh?

I'm really trying to understand what you have to say, but after your last reply I'm more confused.

I thought you didn't think much of music that is not complex enough or challenging enough to play. You say that is not the case. I'd like to reply to what you just posted.

You say that a piece of music, if it all goes by at 12 mph, even if beautiful melodically, loses its charm. You further say that you can't think of one multi-movement symphonic piece where all the movements are adagio.

Regarding music going by at 12mph - not all new age music is slow tempo. And if you listen, a lot of the music has ebb and flow, tension and release, climax, etc.

You offer that you can't think of one multi-movement symphonic piece where all the movements are adagio. I'm trying to figure out what bearing that has on new age music? Most new age music are single pieces of music meant to be enjoyed as such. I don't know of any of it that comes in movements.

Wait, I'm just thinking of something. There are a few new age artists that do kinda drive me up a wall. They have found a "sound" and work it to death. There's not that much variety. One in particular, I'll talk about without naming. I really love his sound, but in truth, there is little variety in the CD I have of his music. Yes, he does in fact, seem to take a particular melodic theme and work it to death throughout the whole CD. The first track on the CD is slow and kinda contemplative and pretty and morose and sad sounding. The second is the same. The third is the same. The fifth, sixth, seventh… They're all different pieces of music, but pretty slow and by the time I've heard the 4th or 5th piece, I'm too depressed to listen to the rest of the CD.

There are some popular artists like this, also. A couple I can think of, but again, won't name. If you listen to their CDs there's no variety. The CD gets boring or irritating after a while.

There definitely is an art in the flow of music that you put on a CD. Or play at a concert. Or the music you play as a DJ. Or on the radio. You can have IMO too much of the same.

It can go the other way, also. I went to a concert recently where every single piece of music was SO FULL OF ENERGY, SO UPBEAT, it was emotionally exhausting. That is the ONLY concert I ever left at "half time". Likewise there's a danger in having too many slow pieces of music one after the other. People need a breather - "ebb and flow" is important. You need to mix it up.

There is another new age artist also, who plays very PRETTY melodic pieces. I very much like his style, also. But, again, the music never deviates from this one sound. And the one thing that really drove me up a wall is there is NEVER any PASSION, or FIRE to this one musician's music. After the 4th or 5th song, I felt like ripping the CD out of the CD player and smashing it up against the wall.

HEY, MAYBE I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AFTER ALL, virtuosic? At least on this one point. ??? Is any of what I'm saying resonating with you? Or are we still on totally different wave lengths???

I would like to say that ALL new age music is not the same. The music, as I said, that most commands my attention and respect, has ebb and flow, passion and fire. But I must also add, I see nothing wrong with a standalone piece of music that is slow paced, beautifully melodic and maybe doesn't deviate too much from that formula in that one piece of music. This does kinda get ruined IMO however, if it is followed by another and another and another and another without variation. That does become annoying to me.

On to something else - you said: "I guess New age afficionados paying good money to see a pianist of very limited skills play nothing more than triads and modes shouldn't surprise me."

virtuosic: beauty is in the "ear" of the beholder. can you understand that many of us find something beautiful and appealing and emotional in the music? When you say things like that, that's why I get the feeling that you are judging a piece of music on it's complexity. ???

As far as you saying that a pianist has very limited skills. What are you basing your judgment on? If you were to play a piece of music - one piece of music only- in public that was not particularly technically challenging to play, do you think it would be fair for those in the audience to come away with the opinion that you have very limited playing skills?

If the music you composed, for whatever reason, was not particularly technically challenging or complex in nature, is it fair to assume that pianist is UNABLE to play more technically advanced pieces of music? And to state unequivocally that the pianist has "limited skills?"


I'd like to add something my husband said today: "It's is possible to confuse mechanical talent with musical ability which can be two different things. Technical ability at something does not guarantee that the person appreciates the art form they are engaged in nor extend the art form by contributions of their own."

Jeanne W

Yes, yes, a rap fan may think Chopin is for losers. But it doesn't matter much what people who enjoy garbage believe in: they are so entrenched in the junk they surround themselves into in order to feel there's more to their mediocre lifes that hardly their opinions will have any weight in deciding what survives to posterity...

We want to preserve our best to our grandsons and hide our worst from them. That's how the best works survive and transform into high art: by aiming high and correctly being identified by reasonable people to be quality stuff.

It's not really a question of popularity, otherwise i'd despise such pieces as Moonlight Sonata or Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, as far as popular classical music goes.

It's a matter of overly simplism, carelessly crafted pieces of worthless fashionable works meant for the many careless ears of nowadays.

Don't forget most people who "enjoy" music actually just listen to it as an aid for either: concentrate on a subject; find love mates; social gathering. Really, most people don't care for the most abstract of arts, that's why the most popular are almost always accompanied by voice, lyrics, attitude and whatever, so that people has something concrete to relate to the sounds in the background. Very few people do in fact enjoy music by itself.

I really have nothing against thoroughly enjoyable, beautiful melodic music. I just feel bad when the composer only offers the melody and little more. There gotta be some substance in there.

Mozart, Schubert, Chopin and Tchaikovsky are highly inventive melodic composers. But I feel of this bunch Tchaikovsky is the only one to have little to add to his beautiful and highly emotive melodies.

How about if I offer a huge reward for information leading to my finding that forum?

Consider yourself being right about at least one thing.

You do realize that's actually four separate sentences. :rolleyes:

Two things I'd like to add to what I said.

I've offered some criticsm of some of the new age artists, two in particular whose music seems to build around a central theme and has little variation. I do still, however, like their music and respect their abilities to compose and to play the piano. Their music is appealing and emotional. And both of the new age artists I was speaking of, without naming them, have a style that is unique and original.

The other thing, is virtuosic you said that musical background should not affect a person's opinion of the music itself and I said I totally agree with that. The reason I offered information about one of the new age musician's musical training is because you also seem to be attacking these musician's abilities to play the piano.

Jeanne W

I didn't attack anyone's abilities. I spoke on the facts themselves, specifically, the music. It's insipid. Nothing happens. It's like an 8 hour guided tour of a wheat field. The same thing over and over. A tropical garden with a stream, a beach, bird sanctuaries, wildlife, a lighthouse, etc., etc., would be far more interesting to enjoy, wouldn't it? Now, if you're a pianist/composer that is a master landscaper, capable of producing sweeping panoramas of spectacular beauty and variety with all the building materials available to you as well, why would you compose the same wheat fields over and over again, the only way to tell the differences between them by their size? Simple is OK. So is complex. Usually, there are proportionate elements of both, in varying degrees, within the same musical composition. Otherwise, it's nothing but a wheat field.

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Jeanne W:

There are those who believe that anything other than classical music (or their particular chosen type of music) is garbage.
________________________________________

namekuisjin replied:

"Yes, yes, a rap fan may think Chopin is for losers. But it doesn't matter much what people who enjoy garbage believe in: they are so entrenched in the junk they surround themselves into in order to feel there's more to their mediocre lifes that hardly their opinions will have any weight in deciding what survives to posterity..."
================================================

namekuisjin: Have you listened to rap music with an open mind and given the music a chance? Do you know much about rap music?

I don't like rap music myself, but I'm not ready to consider and call it "garbage" as you do. For a number of reasons.

I don't think I've given it a fair chance. I haven't listened to much of it, and don't know much about it. It sounds pretty "alien" to my ears and not to my liking.

But I take into consideration that I didn't grow up listening to rap, have not really been exposed to that kind of music and may never be able to develop an appreciation for it.

Granted, each person has his/her own musical taste, even if I gave rap music a fair chance, I may still just not like it.

Your comments about rap music brought to mind a few questions...

Is music that sounds different or alien to our ears fair grounds for labeling it as "trash"?

Is it fair to compare rap music to some other types of music that also sound fairly alien to our western ears? For instance, Japanese, Chinese, East Indian music and other ethnic music that originates in Eastern Europe and different places around the world. This kind of music is based on different types of musical scales and probably employs different rules of composition, as well. It sounds "foreign" and strange to us because we did not grow up in a culture hearing it.

Just because we are not accustomed to hearing a particular kind of music, and maybe never will develop an appreciation for it, or just simply don't like it, does that mean that music is of no value and necessarily "trash"? Is it trash because it doesn't adhere to "our" ideas of what music is or sounds like?

Is it constructive or fair to hold a narrow views of what music is/should be based on our own limited experience and exposure to only certain types of music?

Final thought: Some of the music we know and highly revere was in its day considered "new" and experimental and highly criticized for varying reasons. Some of the reasons for the criticsm was because the music didn't adhere to the musical standards of that time period.

Jeanne W

==============================================

virtuosic1: you posted earlier:

=========================================
posted by virtuosic1:

"If you're constantly playing and composing at juvenile levels when you're capable of far more, why bother."
==================================================

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. What you said in that post, to me, sounded like an attack not only of one's ability to compose music but also on their playing abilities.

Jeanne W