Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What's so bad about Islamey?

It seems to be commonly thought of as vulgar or lacking in musical worth. Is it? Why? Some people are preconditioned to dislike it even if they've never heard it and have never seen the score. Why?

To fans of the piece: what do you like about it? How do you defend it to its many detractors, or do you bother? Is it just a question of taste, or is there something more going on?

Are there other pieces in standard piano repertoire that are so polarizing?

I wouldn't say I'm a fan but I do find it interesting. It's not something I would listen to on my own or learn, but when it's on the radio, I listen through it rather than turning it off. Kinda' luke warm.

Goomer,

You mention the people who are "preconditioned to dislike it even if they've never heard it", and you address the people who are "fans of the piece".

Don't forget the rest of us: the ones who know the piece, and hate it. I find it without substance and in your face-- an unfortunate combination.

-J

My only criticsm of Islamey is I find it a little repetitious. Otherwise I quite like it. I don't think there's any common agreement among PW posters about this piece. Even if there is it would represent too small a number of people(a very high percentage of posts is done by a very small number of posters) to be of any significance.

I don't see much difference conceptually between Islamey and a piece like a Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody except that most of the Liszt Rhapsodies are a little better at achieving the same goal.

I meant to address the rest of you at the start!


I know some people feel as you do about some of Liszt's works, for example, but that's a controversial thing to say because Liszt is a top-tier composer. Is Islamey more easily scorned because Balakirev is not one?

p.s. Posted before I saw pianoloverus mention Liszt.

double post

Yes, I see that you find it repetitious, ... repetitious, ...

I don't think it's a bad piece at all. It's not a masterpiece/staple in my opinion, but I think it's a perfectly fine and fun piece.

If it were easier, it would be a great piece. The problem is that it's so difficult and really isn't worth the effort you put in to learn it, unless you have superb technique (which many do nowadays ).

My one criticism of Islamey is that it is repetitious and has an ugly melody. I mean, my two criticisms of Islamey is that it is repetitious, has an ugly melody, and an equally ugly counter melody. I mean, my three criticisms of Islamey is ... Seriously, I have hated the piece for years before I ever heard it mentioned and I'm shocked and angered when anyone enjoys it.

HAHAHAHAhahahaha...hahaha...ha..

Hilarious.

(Not.)

It has a "melody"?

90% serious, despite the smiley.

I mean, I know that it goes "da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da....." but I never thought of that as a melody.

While I agree the first part isn't the greatest melody, it gives a percussive feel that is interesting. I find the slower middle section quite beautiful. Definitely not a masterpiece, but worth a listen when played well.

I don't particularly like that kind of music, and even when I do, there are other composers and pieces that do it much better and more interestingly. Without trying, I can think of any number of things by Prokofiev and Bartok....

I like the middle section, but the rest is kinda lame. Oh, the coda's pretty cool too. But it's not even all that exciting anyways, especially when you compare it to something like Scarbo.

I think it's got a couple things going for it. Most listeners seem to believe it is one of the most technically challenging works out there, and younger pianists will even approach it this way. And yes, it is technically challenging, so that is the first thing. Many people who attempt to tackle the piece can't get past the technical challenges to the music.

And that's where the real challenge is--the music. There are so many middle lines, inner melodies, and nuances, that it takes a truly seasoned veteran to bring them all to light.

I know when I first tried to learn the piece, I didn't have nearly enough technique to approach it, and while I could hear the music the way I wanted to play it, I couldn't make that happen in my fingers. It took me something like 7 years to come back to it and do it justice.

I consider Islamey to be like beer. Once you acquire a taste for it, you almost can't live without it. But the first time you try it, it kind of tastes like cat [censored].


Let me address some of my ideas based on some of the criticisms in the thread. (I am not doing this to sway anyone's opinion. Some people have very clearly illuminated ideas I could not say any better, and I want to bounce off those ideas.)


This is kind of what I meant early on-- so many pianists tackle it as an in-your-face technical challenge that the music itself is lost. I didn't really like the piece until I started playing around with the score and found the nuances that appealed to me.


Another big issue, and I really like the Liszt example. I might even throw in La Campanella, too, in that it is very repetitious, and only carries a few themes. I believe Islamey was constructed as a fantasy based on two Oriental themes, and they do repeat several times. There's actually an optional cut towards the end of the score to cut a few pages (and one or two repetitions) out, though I don't remember what editor made the suggestion. I'd almost call it a theme and variation, or a fugue, except it doesn't vary enough, and there isn't really any counterpoint. (Would that be fair to say?)

Why not?

And compare the musical material to something like the first movement of Chopin's Op 58 and it looks like Chopsticks.

They're often compared when it comes to technical difficulty, because Ravel apparently tried to write something harder than Islamey and came up with Scarbo (as you probably know....).

Though back to chopsticks..well, that's the point right? It's not supposed to be some sort of deep masterpiece anyways.

I prefer deep masterpieces.