Why do we ignore instrumental work? - Page 6

Originally posted by: chatbuster

Abhi, you should add Brahms and Tchaikovsky to you collection ...

with a dash of Debussy and Chopin?

Mozart and Vivaldi i dont like although some of the older fogeys do

I dont much like Mozart either...I prefer Beethoven over him. But, I love Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

I've heard that Rachmaninoff's piano solos are the toughest to play.

Originally posted by: T.

I dont much like Mozart either...I prefer Beethoven over him. But, I love Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

I've heard that Rachmaninoff's piano solos are the toughest to play.

True. Here's a piece of a tribute to Rachmaninoff ...

His transcendent pianism was instilled into his compositions making them very difficult, yet, due to their pianistic nature, achievable. Pianistic can be difficult to define, especially if one is not familiar with the piano literature in practice. For any particular piece of music, pianistic defines the relationship between the keys on the piano and the human anatomy. If the relationship is complimentary, the music is said to be pianistic. Much of Rachmaninoff's music would be technically impossible if transposed to another key because that would drastically change the 'point of view' of the hands with respect to the keys. A Schubert march on the other hand may be easily played when transposed to another key because it was not necessarily composed with any particular 'point of view' in mind. Clementi, Chopin, Scriabin, and Rachmaninoff were pianistic composers. Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky were not typically pianistic composers. Think of it as "keyboard geography", as described by Marc-Andr Hamelin. Rachmaninoff's complete understanding of piano composition and his command of the instrument allowed him to compose music that is very grand and virtuosic technically. This virtuosity was not "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" as explained by Evgeny Kissin. This was virtuosity for the sake of producing a more effective whole piece. Many feel that Rachmaninoff's contributions are some of the most important works in the piano literature ...

Originally posted by: N Sinha

If you read discussions in SRGM section it becomes apparent that listeners are usually obsessed with singing, sur & expression followed by lyrics. If the lyrics are great, it certainly takes the song to dizzying heights, but I've hardly noticed ever any one appreciating the instrumental components of any songs.
I have always failed to understand this allergy of masses to the instrumental components of a song.
I'm afraid to admit that quite a chunk of this allergy has been propagated by Golden era lovers, I being one of them.
Somehow this concept has grown all these years that a song must be judged by its lyrics/sur/expression/flow & other things, instrumental support being the last of it.

Actually Sinhaji, I feel the word "allergy" is not the right word. Certainly no one is allergic to intrumental components! 😊. You could call it being oblivious or even taking for granted. Instruments are neglected simply because they accompany human voices. Human voices and words are the main components of a Hindi film song - like it or not.

This neglect is partly because the instrumentalists are not even credited in the CDs or albums. When the film producer/director himself is not giving recognition to the artists who play instruments how will the public do so?

Even today, if we go to a sitar recital, the tabla player and other accompanists hardly get attention (unless it is a star like Zakhir Hussain)while everyone listens to the sitar. In the earlier recordings of Ravi Shankar that I have, even the tabla player's name is not mentioned!