Now, don't be a snob. I didn't analyze it; I just said that I haven't heard much Brahms that I like.

Oh, I'm sorry for having used that word But I never did that to anyone on this forum, just to be nice and friendly. It seemed just so to me, even though I try to be attentive. Maybe because I'm not so familiar with your pieces in many cases - so, I expect I could criticize your playing of opus 118. Actually as the Terez' expression "perfect-as-usual" shows, your submissions gives one that impression most of the time. If you want to hear us talking about the shortcomings etc. in your playing, you should submit something easily criticizable with many flawes

Good, now you've a topic to talk about. Go on.

A good choice. They sound very effectively on your playing. On the other way I'm always insecure, when I'm allowed to add something to the "Urtext", when not (apart from Bach-playing). What kind of criterion do you have?

Don't worry HJ, of course it's not a matter of choosing one word over another, it's what you put around a word that counts.



This raises an interesting argument about the reasons we submit recordings to PS. Some people use PS as a showcase, others take advantage from Audition Room to receive insightful comments on their playing. Some simply hang around and hope to exchange views on their interpretations and the music they play. Personally I see no point in reading for the umpteenth time that I play on a digital piano... I know already.

We add something to the "Urtext" all the time! We have to. Secondly, Urtext (or, more rightly, a good critical edition) should be like a compass, or a map, that is, a reliable reference system. Then you choose where to go...

I seem to remember finding a shortcoming or two with your Chopin 15/1 nocturne. Perhaps soon you can find shortcomings in my 55/1 nocturne. I am enjoying relearning it. And my Bach too of course. I can already predict some of your criticisms.

Of course, I tend to comment more on pieces I am familiar with, but I do like chiming in on your threads. I probably wouldn't have commented on this one if Hye-Jin hadn't given me the opportunity to complain about her digital piano, which I'm not sure I've done before.

And I'm glad you did. Offer valuable criticism and you'll fall again into the "most attentive and dedicated members" category.



Dunno, I'm not so familiar with it...



Would you believe me if I said that there's much less to complain about a well played digital piano, as in HJ's case, than about many dull performances on a fine grand?

I don't believe I have ever been in that category, or ever will be.


It's okay; you can post just to say you don't like it much and I won't be offended.


You already know my opinion here.

I'm not familiar with many of the pieces I usually comment on (take Catoire, for instance). I'm caught by an interpretation of a piece, not by the piece per se.
And if you play an instrument, you as a listener don't need to know intimately what has been played to express an opinion on the performance, I believe.

Terez...
do you rename Alfonso's quote references to "Alfie"?

that's funny!

Haha, I find it cool that my complaint resulted in a compliment for my "well played digital piano"

I'm sorry Alfie; I wont comment on your recordings any more unless I know the piece (because regardless of your expectations, I can't think of anything to say about a performance unless I know the piece, unless there is something that stands out to me, which of course there almost never is in your recordings).

Then I'll better learn a lot of Chopin next!

Hello Alfonzo, I finally had a chance to listen to all the pieces. What a wonderful project you set out to accomplish for the year. These performances are all highly musically polished and very well played. This nice suite is a testament to your balancing intelligence and emotional impact within your music. Bravo!

George