What is it with we men and our predisposition for one-up-manship? This Y-chromosome amplification of pride, one of the original gifts handed down from Adam after his apple lunch, that makes us broil better steaks than you on a grill bigger than yours, has been the downfall of so many men, usually because a gauntlet has been thrown down. This is my assessment of the situation, anyway. I doubt that you can come up with anything better. Okay, there was the gauntlet, right there. I am not immune. Men will be men.
The heavyweight championship of piano compositions was handed to Russian composer Mily Balakirev in 1869 for his “Islamey”, an “Oriental Fantasy”. The title remained his for 40 years with “Islamey” remaining high atop the mountain, taunting anyone to be more difficult. But, men are men, and many tried, and many went mad. Or just got mad. Russian composer Alexander Scriabin permanently damaged his right hand in an attempt to write the penultimate virtuosic work. Men are men; and it’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
1909, to be exact. Maurice Ravel, the man to blame for Bolero, deliberately set out to write a piece specifically more difficult than Islamey and succeeded with a three-movement work called “Gaspard de la Nuit”, or Gaspard of the Night. The three parts are entitled “Ondine”, “Le Gibet” and “Scarbo”. It is “Scarbo” that sets the men apart from the other men who have tried to outdo the other men.
“Ondine” is one of the most creative works I have ever heard. A water sprite tries to seduce a mortal lover and is unsuccessful. The imagery of water throughout this piano ballet is fantastic. “Le Gibet” presents the eerie scene of a bell tolling at the walls of a city and the carcass of a hanged man reddened by the setting sun. And “Scarbo”, a goblin or ghost, is the very thing you’re scared of when you’re six years old and you know you’ve heard a noise in the middle of the night. Scarbo mischievously pirouettes, stamps, stomps and disappears, over and over, terrifying the bejeezus out of anyone who’s not asleep.
Ivo Pogorelich became famous when he didn’t win the 1980 International Chopin Piano Competition; talk about your one-up-manship. World-renowned piano virtuoso and competition juror Marta Argerich protested his third round elimination by the jury, resigned from the group and left the competition. Now THAT’S good television!
Mr. Pogorelich’s take on Monsieur Gaspard takes my breath away. Mr. Ravel has made it difficult for any one performer’s rendering to be unique. He has signposts everywhere in the printed music that dictate how the pianist should execute even the tiniest rhythm. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ravel has been quoted: “Don’t interpret my music. Play it!” The mark of a truly gifted artist, however, is one where singularity trumps all observed signposts. Mr. Pogorelich’s spirit is able to break through all barriers in this extraordinary performance.
When I auditioned for “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band, I played “Ondine”, “Islamey”, and Messiaen’s “Regard de l’Esprit de joie” (Gaze of the Joyful Spirit) which is a fiendishly difficult monster to pull off. I had told myself that when I left that audition, I wanted there to be no question of who had some technique, baby. Yeah, I know. Men will be men.
Credits: To "The President's Own", thanks for taking me.
Keep them coming, Erik!
ReplyDeleteMakes the reader want to search out the music.
Read you tomorrow....
John
...I can write anything harder than you...
ReplyDelete(sorry, couldn't help but finish the song...and now THAT one is stuck in my head - ugh. ;)
"What is it with ...?" Who? Whom? The next personal pronoun is "us," not "we". The cue is "with," one of those things [prepositions] you never use to end a sentence 'with.' What follows is the objective, not nominative, case. Would you say, "What is it with we"? I don't think so. "What is it with us [it doesn't matter what may follow] and our predisposition for one-ups-manship?" Can you say, OCD English Major? Of course, you can! OCDEM
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anonymous. You are right, of course. But now I don't know the accepted blogging procedure. Do I correct my objective/nominative faux pas? Or do I leave it as I wrote it so that when people read your comment they'll know what you're talking about? Sorry ... about which you're talking?
ReplyDelete