When it is for the wrong reasons, then yes, it might cause a certain amount of annoyance for those who really are at the top of their game as musicians, or those who have the experience and knowledge to spot real greatness amongst the thousands of good to very good players who are out there.lucy wrote: For whatever reason(s), Milos succeeded, when many others didn't. Is that too just much?
I feel the same as you. Great talent can already be recognized at this age. The greatest performers of our times (Pepe Romero, Bream, Williams, Barrueco, etc...) were already playing the pants off of a classical guitar by the age of this young man in the video. Some may have even had the first formal recital by this age (and I'm not talking about a little high school recital where only family and friends attend). Start them young! I was at a Pepe Romero Master class where the youngest boy played the best. This boy was young and small and he was not playing a scaled down guitar model so the guitar appeared big on his lap. He picked this difficult Bach piece which I think was one of his more obscure movements from a lute suit that nobody plays. Everybody was like "Wow" and probably thinking to themselves "THAT was very good little man!" The rest of the boys (older and larger) were "fuddling" through some well known but not as difficult pieces. Sure, they did well (much better than I would do in front of a large crowd) but this little boy was definitely the stand out.Susil wrote:I'm a bit late to the party in responding to this I know, but couldn't quite pass it by, because I couldn't disagree more.Adrian Allan wrote:Not impressed. A masterclass is not teaching children - it should be conservatory level pupils at least.
Why on earth should this kind of event be confined to one particular type of student? Milos presumably doesn't consider himself above having these kids in his masterclass - and whatever we might think of his playing, that speaks volumes about his attitude to encouraging other players. And look at it from the perspective of the youngsters playing. How much much of an inspiration would that be? I can only imagine how much more hard work I'd have put in as a teenager had it given me a chance to play with a player of that level!
This is hilarious!Mr Kite wrote:Sounds as though the objection is to the name then, rather the event - but what would you have called it? "Guy-who-is not-really-a-master-but-has-nevertheless-forged-a-successful-career-by-combining-such-ability-as-he-does-have-with-savvy-marketing-good-looks-and-a-willingness-to-play-pieces-with-mass-appeal-and-undoubtedly-has-enough-skill-to-teach-the-teenagers-expected-to-attend-besides-being-extremely-well-placed-to-fire-not-only-their-enthusiasm-but-also-that-of-the-general-public-for-what-is-not-an-especially-popular-instrument-class"?
Funny you should mention Jason Vieaux. Of course I don't begrudge his success, but I have to admit that I don't really go for his playing much. I know many people will disagree, but although I realise he's very good, frankly, I find his playing a little sterile. A genuinely nice guy, for sure, though - and good luck to him.Adrian Allan wrote:When it is for the wrong reasons, then yes, it might cause a certain amount of annoyance for those who really are at the top of their game as musicians, or those who have the experience and knowledge to spot real greatness amongst the thousands of good to very good players who are out there.lucy wrote: For whatever reason(s), Milos succeeded, when many others didn't. Is that too just much?
The "hate" is not just a matter of jealousy - it is more a dislike of how classical music has also been polluted by hype and marketing, so that the ability to play right at the top of the game is now not the most vital factor.
Nobody out there is begrudging the success of Jason Vieux, for example. I wonder why?
Very intersting observation and very plausible.lucy wrote:Actually, I do have a theory about it, coming to think of it, I wonder whether general audiences are more interested in how a performer makes them feel inside, whereas some people at least, with more knowledge, are more interested in technical details. Just a thought.
They are both examples of players of the very highest calibre.UKsteve wrote:Very intersting observation and very plausible.lucy wrote:Actually, I do have a theory about it, coming to think of it, I wonder whether general audiences are more interested in how a performer makes them feel inside, whereas some people at least, with more knowledge, are more interested in technical details. Just a thought.
Whenever my wife comes to classical guitar concerts with me, she goes for the "feel" factor. For example, last year Marcin Dylla did nothing much for her, despite prodigious technique, but she loved Ana Vidovic. Further, the latter was playing many pieces well recognised by the non-afficianado. In contrast Marcin came on and ripped through some extremely difficult and rarified pieces. TBH, I myself found Mr. Dylla fascinating from a technical perspective but probably enjoyed Ms. Vidovic more (even if I'd heard the pieces a million times; Recuerdos anyone?).
"A major nobody"? Actually, I think that goes for most of us on this forum!!kirolak wrote:There are so many top guitarists nowadays, one is spoiled for choice.
Personally, I am a huge fan of Ali Arango Marcano, but also Gabriel Bianco, who is very different. . . then there is Andrea De Vitis. . .how can one choose between them, except in their approach to certain pieces (eg Tansman's Passacaille by Sanel Redzic at the Guitar Festival in Zwolle, is the ultimate interpretation, in my opinion).
I tend to see Vieux as a bit boring (don't hit me!) & Ana Vidovic is amazing, but almost "sweet". . . I suppose it is all down to personal taste; yet there should be a Golden Mean, as well.
And as for easily recognisable pieces, I find them generally boring, not pushing the envelope. . . but who am I , anyway? (A major nobody )
I don't think this is necessarily true. There are a lot of people here with many years of experience of playing and listening who have not quite reached that level, or decided to take a different career route.lucy wrote:
I suspect all the players mentioned above would find this thread mildly amusing. They are living their dream, so to speak, earning a living from their guitar, so for them life is good, (very probably). While we argue about the relative merits of their playing, they are busily arranging their next concert, for an appreciative audience. (Apart from Milos - this must be awful for him)
This is a major dilemma with most musical artist in any genre. Are they playing a piece in concert strictly for self gratification or are they going to stick with what the majority of the people know. Finding the balance is probably very difficult but most artist have to give way to what is going to please the masses and just throw a few odd tidbits for the people that are really listening and dissecting the music. Most classical guitar concerts are attended by non players and most are likely not well educated on the classical guitar repertoire. Recuerdos, Asturias/Leyenda and Romanza are typically home runs with the masses.kirolak wrote:
And as for easily recognizable pieces, I find them generally boring, not pushing the envelope. . .
I don't know whether John Williams has ever played this piece in a recital, but he's certainly recorded it, I think more than once, along with many other pieces, even more popular than that one! Xuefei Yang and Carlos Bonell have recorded it too.Adrian Allan wrote:Does Romanza really have a place in a guitar recital?