![]() ![]() ![]() It's just that I think the end result of this Scriabin thing that was posted just sounded a bit contrived and couldn't hold a candle to the original Scriabin. I'm all up for a bit of Oscar Peterson or Michel Le Grand or Ellington, Tatum, Basie, whatever, and all of these guys probably did some variations which sounded great. After all, Liszt did some Paganini variations, Chopin did variations, Rachmaninov did variations and so on and so forth. I myself am of two minds on this.Ĭorrection - I am not arguing on the side of respect, I'm actually arguing about the aesthetics of the final result, so I'm actually on the other side. I find this discussion above interesting because it is now really about the legitimacy of taking an original work and changing it in a way not intended by the original artist. Contemporary visual artists do things like the following: But certainly this perspective has its limits, no? In the visual art domain, similar things happen (my wife studies this phenomena). Let the resulting work stand by itself, without considering the intent or context of the original. ![]() pianoloverus, CyberGene, Simon_b, and other argue on the side of measuring the aesthetics of the result. Here, one side - Bennevis (and Zaphod, NobleHouse and others) - is arguing on the side of "respect" of the base musical work on which the improvisation is being done.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |