Is it acceptable to provide a Youtube link? I don't have an mp3 version (although I could probably create one from the sound track of the vide).
Here is the link (I hope I embedded it correctly):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO9-XemM3X8
Thank you,
Ariel


Schumann - Novelletten op. 21, no. 4, "Ballmässig, sehr munter"

Hi Ariel,
Sorry, we don't do Youtube videos here, only mp3 recordings in good quality. The sound of this one is not very good,
with a lot of hiss, and Youtube already compresses badly, so extracting mp3 from the video is not a hot idea.
Great playing though !

OK, thanks. I'll try to extract an mp3 from the original video.
Ariel

Hi ariel

I've encountered this video before, but want to compliment you again on your fine playing. For so young a pianist, you have a very good grasp of the music and show maturity in your interpretation. I especially like your playing of the very lyrical middle section of the novelette. Very good!

David

Ata menagen meod yaffe, b'meuhad l'gil shelha!! Im mi ata lomed?



Well yeah, but what do I care when the kid (by that I mean tremendously talented young artist) plays like THAT ?

Is not that what counts??? As far as I am concerned, the more recordings like that here, the better and more prestige for the site, but again, I am just a regular member here, so what do I know ...

Best, M

P.S. Please check your PM.

I see your point, but I stand my ground here.
Regardless of somebody's talent (and I well recognize Ariel's talent is HUGE), they still need to submit an mp3 of good sound quality if it is to go up on the site. It's one of the few hard rules we have, and I see no reason at all to deviate from it. Those who don't agree should volunteer to be admins

Just realized that I unwittingly created a sentence with seven two-letter words in a row

Hi,

I think the good news here is that Chris, Marik and I are all enthusiastic in our comments to ariel on his performance (he never ceases to amaze me!). If he can simply submit a good mp3 to meet Piano Society standards for archiving, so much the better. I've always felt very strongly that we have an obligation to encourage the young pianists who show great promise, and we certainly have done that in ariel's case.

David

Thank you all for the encouraging comments.
I made an mp3 file, which I hope I succeeded in uploading correctly.
Is the quality acceptable?

This sounds like another performance to me. It actually sounds less good than your Youtube version and the playing is not as polished (except for the coda which you seem to keep under better control here). I don't want to be a bore, but it's not a recording we would normally admit because of the recessed sound and the background noises.

Oooops! You're right. This was an earlier performance, recorded with very poor equipment.
Here is the one that is on Youtube. There may still be some background noise because it was a public performance.
Sorry to be causing so much trouble.

That's cool--it's your site, so you set the rules. However, there are a few issues here (and I am talking as a professional sound engineer).
1) Where is the definition of good sound, considering IMHO, even most of the commercial CD's have quite crappy sound, and many live recordings of artists even of Richter's magnitude have those unwanted noises.

2) Often, for a good quality recording people need to invest quite a bit of money--good hall, good piano, good equipment. How about the idea that many even great artists don't have that kind of money to invest for a quality recording? Have you thought about the fact that MOST of the artists in fact, are poor people? Let me tell you, not all of even the greatests artists had a luxury of having Steinways in their living rooms (many even did not have living rooms to start with). On the other hand, clearly, in this particular case, the quality of playing is much beyond of average level one can find in the audition room on this site. For me what you call "unacceptable quality" was just enough to enjoy the music even with all the sound quality imperfections (and again, I am a professional recording engineer) and to put it beyond most of recordings on this site. Not trying to question who is the boss, but trying to understand what are the priorities here.

3) The ultimate question would be, what is more valuable, crappy playing and good sound quality, or outstanding playing with enough sound quality to recognize it as such?

Again, not trying to provoke anything, but just want to understand what is the ultimate goal of the art and what is music making all about?

Best, M

It's not my site, I just work here. And the rules, such as there are, have evolved rather than having been set by me. I just hang on to them for dear life.

Sure enough, I would reject a recording of even the greatest pianist if I thought the sound quality wasn't up to standard. Likewise, even the most gorgeous sound will not do if the playing is found wanting. Admittedly, there's a lot of stuff on the site that meets neither of the criteria. As said, the rules have evolved.

Judging artistic and sonic quality of a recording is a subjective task, for which none of the admins are 'qualified'. None of us are professional musicians or sound engineers. Would be that we had a panel of such people who would discuss every submission and come to an unanimous decision. As it is, the admins get the task to listen to everything that's thrown in, evaluate it, provide feedback, make a decision, then often having to defend it to those who don't agree (I admit to finding that last aspect a bit wearing sometimes).

If you ask me if artistic value is more important than good sound, or vice-versa, I have no answer. Both are important and we decide on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that clarifies some.

Being older than the average person here, I have to smile about discussions concerning sound quality. When I was a kid, the recordings were 78 shellac records played with sapphire needles. These were in mono sound, of course. Those records had plenty of snaps, crackles and pops on them! My own first recordings were done on Ampico reel-to-reel tapes in mono sound. When the 33 LPs arrived, we started to enjoy the new "high fidelity" recordings, and it was quite an improvement, especially when stereo arrived soon thereafter.

But here's my point: I well remember putting those old 78s on the turntable with all their surface noises. But when I would hear the playing of Paderewski, Brailowsky, Gieseking, or whomever, the surface noise would magically and quickly disappear and I was transported to another world listening to them. Listeners back then could filter out those sounds to the point where the were not even noticed a few moments into the listening experience.

Today our vaunted digital CDs give us a cold, sterile sound, but yes, I have a few with stage sounds, birds chirping, etc. It never bothers me, as I'm transfixed by the music. This is small-time stuff compared to the snaps, crackles and pops days. If I listen to an LP with a bit of wow and flutter, it still has a warm, gorgeous sound, and the slight distortion interferes not at all. CDs cannot hope to duplicate that wonderful sound. I myself made many analog recordings during the 80s which I enjoy listening to occasionally and don't even notice the wow and flutter in the sound.

Having lived through the days of the older technologies and, like others, developing the knack along the way to do mental "filtering", I tend to be more tolerant of these things. We don't live in an affluent and ideal world, and not every musician can afford good pianos and/or recording equipment. Of course there is still a line where piano and/or recording sound is truly unacceptable--no question about that. But if it comes down to very minor sound issues, I usually pass it off and enjoy the performance. I cannot blame the young people born into the CD era for being critical about spurious noise. They never lived through the decades when we coped with far more noise in recordings. So they're unable to filter it out. But to me it's all relative.

David

Sure David, that is all well and true for the recordings from the past. We have to accept/ignore, their
bad sonic quality. Or, listen to it with fond nostalgia

On the other hand ! For artists in this day and age, I don't really see an excuse for not producing good sounding
recordings. I believe that anybody who is serious about recording for PS should take that effort, however talented
they are.

This mp3 then. I can't honestly say it sounds very pleasant, but it's not much worse than the Youtube version, and
not unacceptably bad. I don't much like the mayhem between 3:11 and 3:18 but I understand these things can
happen in a live recording when you go hell-for-leather. Let no one say of Ariel that he fears taking a risk

So if we have to put this up the site, we need a biography and photo.