I have been going through a transformation recently. Before 2006, I felt that I was the kind of person who prefers to dig up century old music and books, does not care about what's going on in the real world today. That's why I didn't care about economics or environmental science either. Now it's different.
The reason is complex. Partly I felt being more realistic and practical after being in the US for three years and seeing others going around searching for jobs, which is not the best time. Another reason is tied to my fundamental personal philosophy that makes sense for the change--not being afraid of doing what I want to do, because there is nothing I could lose. I also feel that personal interest and real-life situations, making a good living, are two different things, and one do not necessarily have to live in the bubbles of the dreams and not getting real. I heard that when I told someone once that I wanted to study astronomy physics because it was intriguing. Now i understand how that feels. To get real.
I have been speculating how music can be real: music is everywhere, but why do people say that it's hard for a musician to make a living? It is hard in many cases. I've searched online, library,to get to know music education, music therapy, music and technology, music industry...I want to bring more wonderful music to use to make life better.
DON'T EVER FEAR THAT YOU MIGHT GET LOST DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. A simple idea is all it begins with. Simple Ideas matter. As long as you go for it, and do not afraid of lose. Because all success come after failure. And it takes time.
One of the greatest contemporary Chinese erhu soloists, Min Hui-Fen, used to say to me, in a definitive manner, that 'what is special about bowed string instruments, erhu and violin alike, is that it delivers a continuous line that flows without stop--different from a sound point in time delivered by plucking a string or striking a key on the piano'. She suggested that I must follow this and play always a long, continuous musical line that hold the continuous breath and vibrato. Now Indonesian rebab player would disagree with this generalization--they are trained aesthetically to play fiddle music in a highly discontinued manner. Where they got this idea of breaking a continuous musical line into several parts and let them flow out one by one is for sure from the singing, if you've heard the Indonesian singers, whom the fiddle imitates. Where erhu master got her idea--not necessarily a traditional Chinese one--is possible to be related to the modern solo erhu aesthetics that is akin to the influence of violin music. Yes, to think about it, great violinists know how to play a long continuous line of music that can last a few minutes without apparently taking a breath, and that is for sure a very different typology than the Indonesian rebab.
Indonesian Rebab is mostly used to accompany and imitate singing by following closely the melody of the singers. Indian Sarangi has the same relationship with the singers but at the same time is not regarded as the important instruments such as sitar and tabla. Chinese huqin plays a great role in the ensembles that accompanying the Chinese opera singing, but never follow the singers that closely as it stands out. Violin in Western classical music usually do not serve as the imitation of the singers and by all means developed the most specialized techniques that requires an excessive amount of specialized training to master. How and why do cultures classify, value, and make use of fiddle instruments differently, on top of their diverse musical styles, playing techniques and conventions?This is one important question if one wants to understand the lives of different fiddles---a most common instrument found in many many cultures.
The music therapy must be functioning through social and psychological factors. So, music and affection--both person-to-object affection and person-to-person affection----is the topic right on top of no.10. Why do people feel music has a probably stronger communication power than language (despite the saying that 'music is a universal language')?Some say music communicates affection and mood. When I met the Indonesian singer Rita Tila, and we played with Gamelan ensemble for two weeks followed by two concerts, everyone feel great emotional attachment with each other. Even though we have not talked much with one another, we feel that playing music ties us stronger than other means of communication--through music making, we feel we are so close and we know each other so well that it's even better than if we've talked for a long long time.
Every time after playing in concerts, I feel empowered and refreshed, my physical health improved. Why is that? It turns out that after a long time, the question is not as simple as 'music can heal' any more, as certain complications that came along. For instance, in what situation music can improve my health? If someone cannot play music but likes to listen to it, are they likely to benefit from it? Being a musician I feel that listening (passive experiences comparing to making music) is much less effective than playing (active creative expression). On the other hand, I came to realize more and more that music may not be directly affecting the physical status--it is very much through the psychological and social level of communication. If I play music by myself, I may not feel the healing power; if I play with other musicians, I can feel better but still restrained power; only when I play for many many people that I feel the great power of pleasing myself and thus healing. It resembles the pleasure I had after I attend a pleasant social event where I can communicate happily with friends. So, after all, how does this work?
Music Review; Pianist Matsuev's debut with Pittsburgh Symphony concludes the Rachmaninoff Festival
by Shuo Zhang
I was once convinced that live performance in classical music can never be as perfect as the recording. As time passing by, I was proved wrong by some soloists in concerts but remained partially skeptical about whether I was really wrong. Last night at Heinz Hall, pianist Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto no.3 with conductor Slatkin, delivered such an glittering performance that once again proved I was indeed wrong.
As the last part of the concert series of the Rachmaninoff Festival, the concert last night contained some of Rachmaninoff's best known works--including the beautiful and sorrow song the Vocalise (which is dedicated by Slatkin to the three police officers killed last week), Symphonic Dances, and the wildly popular Piano Concerto No.3.
The two symphonic pieces in the first half shows the orchestra's ability to paint diverse colors on the canvas of music. Comparing to the much softer and soul-touching whispering timbre of the Vocalise, Slatkin interprets the Symphonic Dances by contrasting three kinds of different moods: one soft and light-hearted, one dynamic, delivered at the top volume of the full orchestra, and finally one lyrical, at the same time full of the sentiment heard on the strings played using the entire portion of their bow. Such sentiment is especially strong when the borrowed theme from Rachmaninoff's own Symphony No.3 appears, here in a different harmonic configuration. Meanwhile, the various percussions used in the third movement, including the xylophone, triangle, snare drum, tambourine, cymbals, tubular bells, and the gong.
A Russian virtuoso pianist, Denis Matsuev is well known for his Rachmaninoff and his works in collaboration with the Serge Rachmaninoff Foundation. The most notable of his Rachmaninoff No.3 last night is that he seems to conquer this massive and extremely technical demanding piece rather effortlessly, while the performance turned out to be perfectly accurate and affectionate.
It also turns out that Matsuev makes effective use of body language in corresponding to the contrast in music, seen in the calm, almost motionless upper body of the opening theme (and many reappearance) in the first movement, and the fierce, dramatic movement of the notorisouly long Cadenza passage, which in this unusual case was set to the Development section in the first movement by Rachmaninoff. In this latter case, seeing the movement of the hands on top of listening to the music is absolutely another level of shock by the dazzling techniques of this piece.
Slatkin, on the other hand, successfully blends the color of the orchestra with the piano with careful design. There are parts where the orchestra overshadowed the piano in volume even when there is much going on to keep the pianist's hands busy, showing the coordinated collaboration between the two （instead of piano dominating all the time).
The program repeat on Saturday and Sunday at 8:00 P.M.
