Let's talk music, no genre boundaries

@mahgister 

That Yudina performance of Lacrimosa is very intense!!!  Perhaps I’m shallow but I don’t find listening to that particularly enjoyable. But then I'm admittedly not an experienced Classical music listener. I'm just reacting to how it feels energetically.  

On the other hand, I enjoyed the Sultanov performance and listened to more of them on youtube. 

You are right for sure!

Yudina like Sofronitsky is pure spiritual power...

You cannot  enjoy an erupting volcano...

You can only learn how to deal with his eruption...

Spiritual interpretation in my experience are too intense to be merely enjoyable...

You cannot listen to his Mozart like listening the magical Murray Perahia or any other magician on repeat just for pleasure...

Yudina lives on another world...you must listen to her in some sacred moment...Then you will understand why a giant like Shostakovitch considered her the greatest pianist he knew not because there is not many great pianists in Russia or in the world but because very few artist touch the spiritual plane or what he called the goal of art...

Sultanov gave a truly good Scriabin... I did not even knew him yesterday...A pity he died so young...

I would have bought his Integral piano work of Scriabin ...I did not like much any modern well recorded Scriabin ...I have many...  All the one i like are not well recorded except  Boris Zukhov  a great pianist just under Sofronitsky the truly one god in Scriabin...

@mahgister 

That Yudina performance of Lacrimosa is very intense!!!  Perhaps I’m shallow but I don’t find listening to that particularly enjoyable. But then I’m admittedly not an experienced Classical music listener. I’m just reacting to how it feels energetically.  

On the other hand, I enjoyed the Sultanov performance and listened to more of them on youtube. 

@stuartk 

That Lacrimosa must have been transcribed for the piano. Here is Karl Bohm conducting it. You might like this better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNs2J9U_W4

For a variety of reasons, I won’t touch the more metaphysical/philosophical  thoughts shared and arguments posed by some of you fine gentlemen.  However, some thoughts about a couple of the more down to earth topics discussed:

While it is the opinion of some authorities that the “first” musical instrument was the flute, the 60,000 year old Slovenian “Neanderthal flute” being the prime example (proof?), there are other authorities that disagree and opine that, in fact, the first instrument was probably sticks or bones used as percussion instruments.  I agree with the latter.  The Neanderthal flute discovered in a cave in Slovenia is actually fairly sophisticated actually having tone holes that allow tones to be played whose relationship is diatonic.  A diatonic scale as used in most Western music.  That it was the first seems implausible to me.  Additionally, if one considers that rhythm, even more so than melody, is the prime essential element of music it follows that some sort of rhythm instrument, however primitive, was probably the first.

I took the  “Jazz pianist vs AI” test posted by Mahgister.  Interesting indeed!  I guessed correctly every time.  I bring this up not in search of any undue kudos or credit, but to bring up something I heard in the comparisons that was interesting in the context of this thread which is, after all, part of an audiophile forum.  One could point to the musical “looseness” (swagger as used in this thread) of the real Jazz pianist clips vs AI.  This did not surprise me at all.  What did surprise me was a certain timbral “tightness” in the sound of the AI clips, akin to what is claimed (heard) by some listeners in the perennial argument of “analog vs  digital”.  

I guess I have, in fact and without meaning to, ventured into the metaphysical realm, but it reaffirmed my feeling that as concerns the arts AI will ultimately only come so close, but as they say, “no cigar”.

Best to all.

The first musical instrument is our gesturing body...

Our body gesture on the members scale  and on the throat/mouth scale ...

 The two gesture are synchronized then as frogman said the rythm is fundamental...

The rythm is not merely something flowing in physical time but something creating his own time dimension...

The fist musical instrument is not physical object but body parts synchronising in something which is not speech as we know it now nor singing as we know it now in a separate way but the two as one...

Two feet and legs can synchronise with a bone sticking  etc 

 Speech and music  were conjoined twin never naturally separated but artificially separated by specialization... 

it is why poetry register made us conscious about the deep root of language in music ...

Prose register is only the peak of language iceberg...

 Methodologically Saussure advocated for the arbitrary of signs maxim , but he guessed that sounds in language are also motivated by  meaning  in his study about onomatopea...

Language is way less known than our science think it is...

The greatest linguist since Panini is not even translated in English by the way : Gustave Guillaume  which opuses goes near 30 volumes and more to come  in edition right now ... ( i studied it 35 years ago )

 In the same way acoustics  is a deep science which revolution  is ongoing right now...

but all this is out of topic here ...