Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: DeepBlue <dan.koren@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
Subject: Re: What is the reason for this piano duo =?UTF-8?B?bGF5b3V0Pw==?=
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:09:50 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <8468c08871b19e08c4a54ad46766167a@www.novabbs.com>
References: <71a12235f2ee60320795199f621572e8@www.novabbs.com> <vst7ld$334o4$1@paganini.bofh.team> <2581c86a278b6d5e6d13a16515c445fc@www.novabbs.com> <vsu9cb$34piu$1@paganini.bofh.team> <511edf70b86750c2cc68be643cfd329b@www.novabbs.com> <vsvmhf$2ufpf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3551542"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+LX6U+QEdxmX65G/ioNLHVfhXMvuBu5fNOpF5omT0G8";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$2MVlTYPjw.JTpMZdb8cmSethXvIOgtBpNpBQOvy.aK7Yww2Nx7Vxi
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 9e00570fb1895deee7851c86c763dbf872b2557c
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3499
Lines: 55

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 5:06:52 +0000, PPeso wrote:

> On 4/6/2025 6:36 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>
>> How is this not "strict literalism", and how did he
>> know "better"? Today's instruments are nothing like
>> the pianoforti and the fortepiani of his time. Could
>> any compawsers living in those times have imagined
>> the sound of a 9' Boisendorfer, Fazioli, or Yamaha?
>
> Precisely my point, they couldn't. This is why Schubert
> and co. played on a Fazioli is a transcription. Nothing
> wrong with that, and not a very original point anyway
> after about sixty years of debates on original
> instruments and HIPs.

It seems to me you are stretching the meaning of the
word 'transcription' far beyond its accepted common
meaning.

>> I very much prefer to hear different sound, different
>> color palettes, and different expression and phrasing
>> from the two pianists rather than a homogenuous sound
>> mix. To my ears the latter is more bland.
>
> Your prerogative.

Thanks for allowing me minimal constitutional rights! ;-)

>> A performance
>> of a 4 hand piano work on 2 pianos is not a transcription
>> unless the score has been modified. If one followed your
>> reasoning to its logical conclusion performing the work
>> on any instrumenti that are however different from Franz'
>> spinet would create a "transcription".
>
> Technically Schubert played pianos by Seidner and Walther
> & Sohn. And, actually, a modification of the "score" has
> never been a necessary condition for a "transcription"
> (in fact, a modification of the score is more properly
> an "arrangement"). Again, we are reinventing the wheel
> here. And again, whatever makes you happy.

"We" are not reinventing "wheels" or anything else. You
are attempting to redefine the meaning of common English
vocabulary with clear intent to promote a strict literalist
concept of musical interpretation. To the extent one can
make sense of what you are saying, it sounds to me like
"any manner of performing a musical work that is different
from what the compawser 'intended' or on instruments that
are however slightly different from those used during the
times when the work was composed, or in a manner that is
different from the performing practice during those times
is a 'transcription' ".

ROTFL !!!