(A lot of boring and off topic talk here).
Anyways, I noticed that Liszt, Chopin and Rubinstein are on the vote list. Didn't they all die like, at least a hundred years ago ?
Is there recorded piano music from these composers / pianists ? And if so, is the quality good enough to determine who was the best ?
Of course they were exceptional pianists, but how can we compare them ? And compare them with other, more modern pianists ?
Another thing : you can not compare classical music with jazz. That's comparing apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
(A lot of boring and off topic talk here).Anyways, I noticed that Liszt, Chopin and Rubinstein are on the vote list. Didn't they all die like, at least a hundred years ago ?
Is there recorded piano music from these composers / pianists ? And if so, is the quality good enough to determine who was the best ?
Of course they were exceptional pianists, but how can we compare them ? And compare them with other, more modern pianists ?
Another thing : you can not compare classical music with jazz. That's comparing apples and oranges.
AC:
Define techinical brilliancy on the piano because if Tori Amos possesses it you need to define it.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Liszt, Chopin, Horowitz, Tatum, Rubinstein, Rachminoff and others are all dead. Rubinstein (died 1983 I think), Tatum and Horowitz are easy to find on YouTube though. When you look at their compositions though it can be seen how technically skilled they were. There are recordings played exactly as they were composed which can indicate how good they were, but I think the complexity and beauty of the composition also indicates their skill. Liszt is probably the most virtuoso composer of all time while Chopin is considered by many to be the best composer for the piano. That does equal the best though as I think Rubinstein and Horowitz are probably technically better. Who is the best is rather subjective I think, I personally feel that Rubinstein had the best balance of the three. Who is the best cannot be ultimately defined, but let it suffice to say that Tori Amos is leagues below any of these people.
Comparing jazz and classical is difficult, but I think it was Horotwitz who said that Art Tatum is the greatest to have ever lived. It's hard to compare which is why there is room for subjectivity.AC:
Define techinical brilliancy on the piano because if Tori Amos possesses it you need to define it.
For crying out loud, I'm not saying she's the best or anywhere near the best, this is why it doesn't need to be defined, what needs to be cleared up is your stupid logic. You think I'm saying she's the best because I'm calling her what YOU call certain pianists, this isn't the case.
You label certain pianists as technically brilliant and then, because she isn't AS good, you say she's not technically brilliant. What is the deal there? There are levels of brilliance.
Thierry Henry is a brilliant football player, he's not as good as Pele, also brilliant, but he's still brilliant.
This is YOUR problem, I have no problems differentiating between who is and who ISN'T better than Amos, you just seem to be stuck on the idea of "If I attach one term to a group, and she isn't exactly as good, it cannot apply.". All those pianists aren't all as good as each other, so why aren't you saying the same to them? One of them is better than all the rest, so does that mean the rest aren't brilliant, just because he is?
-AC
I have fully realized since the beginning that you do not think she is the best, however, by saying that she is technically brilliant you are wrong. Technically brilliance as defined in piano playing is not something she has.
Your analogy is not a good one for the situation as Thierry Henry is one of the best players of all time while Tori Amos is not even close to being one of the best technically.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I have fully realized since the beginning that you do not think she is the best, however, by saying that she is technically brilliant you are wrong. Technically brilliance as defined in piano playing is not something she has.
No, technical brilliance is defined BY YOU as something those people have. You're right, but technical brilliance doesn't stop there. She's technically brilliant, just less so. You are assuming that "technically brilliant" can only be applied to the best ever, that's not the case.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Your analogy is not a good one for the situation as Thierry Henry is one of the best players of all time while Tori Amos is not even close to being one of the best technically.
Who is saying she's close to being one of the best? You didn't get the point of my analogy.
I'm saying that you are getting too caught up on defining the WORDS without seeing what I mean.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, technical brilliance is defined BY YOU as something those people have. You're right, but technical brilliance doesn't stop there. She's technically brilliant, just less so. You are assuming that "technically brilliant" can only be applied to the best ever, that's not the case.Who is saying she's close to being one of the best? You didn't get the point of my analogy.
I'm saying that you are getting too caught up on defining the WORDS without seeing what I mean.
-AC
Originally posted by Nellinator
Brilliance would be reserved for the A-class..
According to? Do we have a law or bible that states this?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Technical brilliance would suggest that she is capable of doing the most difficult things on piano, something that she cannot.
How many people can play the stuff she plays (Which, if you read her tab books, isn't as easy as you're claiming to show off), on two grand pianos, one hand each?
She's pathetically good, ability wise. Far from the best, fine.
-AC
Brilliance indicates distinction and technically, she is not distinctly amazing technically though she is good.
Her music is pathetically easy compared to Liszt. I'd be happy to show you the amazing difference in difficulty. Now I easily admit that I could not play her music on two pianos and that she is far better than I am, but there are reasons why she was kicked out of music school.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Brilliance indicates distinction and technically, she is not distinctly amazing technically though she is good.
I'm waiting on some kind of factual, non-subjective proof that this is the case. Until then, I don't agree with you.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Her music is pathetically easy compared to Liszt.
Compared to Liszt. A lot of piano is piss easy compared to Liszt.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd be happy to show you the amazing difference in difficulty. Now I easily admit that I could not play her music on two pianos and that she is far better than I am, but there are reasons why she was kicked out of music school.
And the plot thickens.
WHY do you keep emphasising the difference in difficulty? Why? It's not an issue. It doesn't stop her being brilliant in the eyes of many, it stops her being brilliant in the eyes of YOU because for some anal reason you only believe brilliance is applicable to the top 50 ever.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm waiting on some kind of factual, non-subjective proof that this is the case. Until then, I don't agree with you.Compared to Liszt. A lot of piano is piss easy compared to Liszt.
And the plot thickens.
WHY do you keep emphasising the difference in difficulty? Why? It's not an issue. It doesn't stop her being brilliant in the eyes of many, it stops her being brilliant in the eyes of YOU because for some anal reason you only believe brilliance is applicable to the top 50 ever.
-AC
Very true.
I see brilliance being limited to a select handful simply because there is a clear distinction between the top group, the chasers, and C-classers like her. Saying she is technically brilliant is saying that she capable of feats on the piano that are technically brilliant, but she is not amazing in that regard because as flashy as what she does looks it has been done before by too many people distinguish her from the crowd, like playing on two pianos and playing with just the strings. Piano is a far more widely played instrument than the guitar (though I believe that will have changed by the next generation) and has been around much longer meaning that many people can play it to high levels, many better than her. What distinguishes her from the rest is her songwriting and emotional playing along with a great voice.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Before I get into that, I want to hear what you think makes her technically brilliant.
No, I asked you first. Where's this bible or factual (Undeniable truth) evidence that says what brilliance is and how it should be applied? Unless you are using the term subjectively (You are).
Originally posted by Nellinator
I see brilliance being
Case closed. YOU see it being one thing, I see it being another. Unless you can provide factual evidence that says what the word "Brilliant" or "Brilliance" should be applied to, it's subjective how we use the word.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Saying she is technically brilliant is saying that she capable of feats on the piano that are technically brilliant, but she is not amazing in that regard because as flashy as what she does looks it has been done before by too many people distinguish her from the crowd, like playing on two pianos and playing with just the strings. Piano is a far more widely played instrument than the guitar (though I believe that will have changed by the next generation) and has been around much longer meaning that many people can play it to high levels, many better than her. What distinguishes her from the rest is her songwriting and emotional playing along with a great voice.
Why the f*ck are you harping on about how many people are better? Are you genuinely thick?
It doesn't matter how many people are better, she's still seen by many as technically brilliant. Me calling her that doesn't mean I'm putting her on the same level as the best, TO YOU it does because you have a retarded view of how to use the word "Brilliant.".
-AC
Monk was the 11th person I would have put on the list, he is amazing. I kinda have a bias towards the classical people though.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, I asked you first. Where's this bible or factual (Undeniable truth) evidence that says what brilliance is and how it should be applied? Unless you are using the term subjectively (You are).Case closed. YOU see it being one thing, I see it being another. Unless you can provide factual evidence that says what the word "Brilliant" or "Brilliance" should be applied to, it's subjective how we use the word.
Why the f*ck are you harping on about how many people are better? Are you genuinely thick?
It doesn't matter how many people are better, she's still seen by many as technically brilliant. Me calling her that doesn't mean I'm putting her on the same level as the best, TO YOU it does because you have a retarded view of how to use the word "Brilliant.".
-AC
Originally posted by Nellinator
Brilliant as per dictionary definition refers to distinction. She is does nothing distinctive great technically on the piano. She is good, not distinct. When someone is just one of many thousands of people capable of these things they are not distinct, therefore, she is not distinct, meaning that she is not technically brilliant by any stretch of the imagination.
Being one of JUST thousands compared to however many billions are on this planet, yes, that's distinct.
Stop being so anal and picky with the word "brilliance". It's not factual that she's not brilliant, you're just reducing the span of the word. It doesn't mean she's not technically brilliant.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I kinda have a bias towards the classical people though.
Then your opinion is hardly valid.
-AC
Originally posted by Nellinator
Liszt, Chopin, Horowitz, Tatum, Rubinstein, Rachminoff and others are all dead. Rubinstein (died 1983 I think), Tatum and Horowitz are easy to find on YouTube though. When you look at their compositions though it can be seen how technically skilled they were.
No, it can't.
Frank Zappa composed The Black Page for drums. He can't play drums very well.
However, the piece is so technically difficult that only Terry Bozzio and Vinnie Colaiuta have played it.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, it can't.Frank Zappa composed The Black Page for drums. He can't play drums very well.
However, the piece is so technically difficult that only Terry Bozzio and Vinnie Colaiuta have played it.
Originally posted by Nellinator
They all play other composers as well. They can easily play at the level they compose. Most of them rearrange former composers' work and make it even more difficult. Horowitz, for example, is an amazing interpreter of Rachninoff, while Rubinstein is an amazing interpreter of Chopin.
Regardless, compositional skills aren't proof of technical ability on an instrument, as you suggested.