Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
QuoteReplyTopic: (Musician) Ruined ( Band) for me. Posted: November 20 2018 at 15:36
Sean Trane wrote:
Third page and not a Phil Collins mention?? watsrongwifuguys?
Well after reading his "Not Dead Yet" memoir and watching stuff like that I personally figured the whole Genesis-going-pop thing was a natural progression (sic!) of the band. Actually it looks like both Banks and Rutherford tried to write a hit (aka sappy love songs) for years, but only when Collins caught huge success with his solo output they let him write for Genesis too.
Tony in particular seems to be so jealous of Phil's success and so bitter about it, while he should've been thankful to their drummer boi for creating four more albums with the band after those sensational sales of "Face Value" - because eventually these albums meant more money for Tony too. Hell, Tony's even bitter about Peter being the unique frontman that he was - quote "I felt it was Peter becoming the main focus of both the music press and the fans, not the band". Well if not Peter and his shenanigans, would've Genesis been noticed at all? Who knows...
Sigh; I knew this would come from Rush fans. They would (deliberately?) misunderstand me.
I am not talking about creating drum
parts, I am talking about playing them. Peart will play the same fill-in
at the same time every time a certain song is played. I call that "lack
of inspiration". The drummer is the musician with the most freedom in a band; just listen to how jazz drummers play. If a drummer does not use this freedom he is uninspired.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. It comes down to your interpretation of inspired as opposed to mine. Reading what you wrote, I don't see that as "lack of inspiration". I see it as "lack of improvisation". You consider his lack of improvisation to be a lack of inspiration. I don't. However, reading your post above about classical music, I now have a better idea of where you're coming from.
You are correct that Peart is (mostly) not improvisational in his playing. That's not his thing. He has admitted that he is far more compositional than improvisational in his playing. However, I think that dismissing his worth based on the fact that he doesn't vary up his drum fills, etc during live performances is unfair.
You are not the first one to confuse me with my wife (same-sex marriage) BaldJean, probably because we have the same avatar (the cover of the first album of our band Bald Angels). She was the one who wrote that classical music post. She is the keyboarder and guitar player and sings some harmony vocals, I am the drummer, bass player and lead singer. Jean is also responsible for the compositions; I write the lyrics.
Just to make this clear: I do not doubt the technical skills of Neil Peart. But playing the same every time is in my opinion totally boring; it makes you appear like a music bureaucrat. I myself most definitely don't do that.
Fair enough and apologies for mixing up the posts.
Sigh; I knew this would come from Rush fans. They would (deliberately?) misunderstand me.
I am not talking about creating drum
parts, I am talking about playing them. Peart will play the same fill-in
at the same time every time a certain song is played. I call that "lack
of inspiration". The drummer is the musician with the most freedom in a band; just listen to how jazz drummers play. If a drummer does not use this freedom he is uninspired.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. It comes down to your interpretation of inspired as opposed to mine. Reading what you wrote, I don't see that as "lack of inspiration". I see it as "lack of improvisation". You consider his lack of improvisation to be a lack of inspiration. I don't. However, reading your post above about classical music, I now have a better idea of where you're coming from.
You are correct that Peart is (mostly) not improvisational in his playing. That's not his thing. He has admitted that he is far more compositional than improvisational in his playing. However, I think that dismissing his worth based on the fact that he doesn't vary up his drum fills, etc during live performances is unfair.
You are not the first one to confuse me with my wife (same-sex marriage) BaldJean, probably because we have the same avatar (the cover of the first album of our band Bald Angels). She was the one who wrote that classical music post. She is the keyboarder and guitar player and sings some harmony vocals, I am the drummer, bass player and lead singer. Jean is also responsible for the compositions; I write the lyrics.
Just to make this clear: I do not doubt the technical skills of Neil Peart. But playing the same every time is in my opinion totally boring; it makes you appear like a music bureaucrat. I myself most definitely don't do that.
cheers
Edited by flyingveepixie - November 26 2018 at 01:26
Sigh; I knew this would come from Rush fans. They would (deliberately?) misunderstand me.
I am not talking about creating drum
parts, I am talking about playing them. Peart will play the same fill-in
at the same time every time a certain song is played. I call that "lack
of inspiration". The drummer is the musician with the most freedom in a band; just listen to how jazz drummers play. If a drummer does not use this freedom he is uninspired.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. It comes down to your interpretation of inspired as opposed to mine. Reading what you wrote, I don't see that as "lack of inspiration". I see it as "lack of improvisation". You consider his lack of improvisation to be a lack of inspiration. I don't. However, reading your post above about classical music, I now have a better idea of where you're coming from.
You are correct that Peart is (mostly) not improvisational in his playing. That's not his thing. He has admitted that he is far more compositional than improvisational in his playing. However, I think that dismissing his worth based on the fact that he doesn't vary up his drum fills, etc during live performances is unfair.
You are not the first one to confuse me with my wife (same-sex marriage) BaldJean, probably because we have the same avatar (the cover of the first album of our band Bald Angels). She was the one who wrote that classical music post. She is the keyboarder and guitar player and sings some harmony vocals, I am the drummer, bass player and lead singer. Jean is also responsible for the compositions; I write the lyrics.
Just to make this clear: I do not doubt the technical skills of Neil Peart. But playing the same every time is in my opinion totally boring; it makes you appear like a music bureaucrat. I myself most definitely don't do that.
This one might start some trouble bur here goes. Name the one band member that ruined a particular band for you
So, Who is it for you?
Third page and not a Phil Collins mention?? watsrongwifuguys??
wiz_d_kidd wrote:
dwill123 wrote:
I didn't like it when Adrian Belew joined King Crimson. The music got a little silly.
I mostly agree, but have to say Discipline was an absolute gem (for me, anyway). After that, I think Belew exerted too much influence and moved the music in a direction I didn't care for.
Yup, though I do like most of Discipline, I'm no fan of 80's Crimson, and I can definitely blame it mostly on Ade... But then again, je was there for the 90's and 00's albums and prefer them over the 80's.
Sigh; I knew this would come from Rush fans. They would (deliberately?) misunderstand me.
I am not talking about creating drum
parts, I am talking about playing them. Peart will play the same fill-in
at the same time every time a certain song is played. I call that "lack
of inspiration". The drummer is the musician with the most freedom in a band; just listen to how jazz drummers play. If a drummer does not use this freedom he is uninspired.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. It comes down to your interpretation of inspired as opposed to mine. Reading what you wrote, I don't see that as "lack of inspiration". I see it as "lack of improvisation". You consider his lack of improvisation to be a lack of inspiration. I don't. However, reading your post above about classical music, I now have a better idea of where you're coming from.
You are correct that Peart is (mostly) not improvisational in his playing. That's not his thing. He has admitted that he is far more compositional than improvisational in his playing. However, I think that dismissing his worth based on the fact that he doesn't vary up his drum fills, etc during live performances is unfair.
I would like to elaborate a bit more on what I said to
flyingveepixie (about not knowing what is composed and what is
improvised). many baroque compositions are for an instrument or a group
of instruments plus basso continuo. I could explain what basso continuo
is but I will instead quote from Wikipedia:
Basso continuo parts, almost universal in the Baroque era (1600–1750), provided the harmonic
structure of the music. The phrase is often shortened to continuo, and
the instrumentalists playing the continuo part are called the continuo
group.
The makeup of the continuo group is often left to the discretion
of the performers, and practice varied enormously within the Baroque
period. At least one instrument capable of playing chords must be
included, such as a piano, harpsichord, organ, lute, theorbo, guitar, regal, or harp. In addition, any number of instruments which play in the bass register may be included, such as cello, double bass, bass viol, or bassoon.
The most common combination, at least in modern performances, is
harpsichord and cello for instrumental works and secular vocal works,
such as operas, and organ for sacred music. Typically performers match the instrument families used in the full ensemble: including bassoon when the work includes oboes or other winds, but restricting it to cello and/or double bass if only strings are involved. Harps,
lutes, and other handheld instruments are more typical of early
17th-century music. Sometimes instruments are specified by the composer:
in L'Orfeo (1607) Monteverdi calls for an exceptionally varied instrumentation, with multiple harpsichords and lutes with a bass violin in the pastoral scenes followed by lamenting to the accompaniment of organo di legno and chitarrone, while Charon stands watch to the sound of a regal.
The keyboard (or other chord-playing instrument) player realizes
a continuo part by playing, in addition to the notated bass line, notes
above it to complete chords, either determined ahead of time or improvised
in performance. The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide,
but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the
other instruments or voices (notably the lead melody and any accidentals that might be present in it) as a guide. Experienced players sometimes incorporate motives
found in the other instrumental parts into their improvised chordal
accompaniment. Modern editions of such music usually supply a realized
keyboard part, fully written out in staff notation for a player, in place of improvisation. With the rise in historically informed performance,
however, the number of performers who are able to improvise their parts
from the figures, as Baroque players would have done, has increased.[citation needed]
Basso continuo, though an essential structural and identifying
element of the Baroque period, continued to be used in many works,
mostly (but not limited to) sacred choral works, of the classical period (up to around 1800).[3][not in citation given] An example is C. P. E. Bach's
Concerto in D minor for flute, strings and basso continuo. Examples of
its use in the 19th century are rarer, but they do exist: masses by Anton Bruckner, Beethoven, and Franz Schubert, for example, have a basso continuo part that was for an organist.
so
when you hear a "composition" like for example Johann Sebastian Bach's
Sonata in e minor for flute and basso continuo (BWV 1034) you should be
aware that this basso continuo part is not fully written out; the
composer left it to the skill of the performing musician(s) to improvise
that part.
improvisation
is sadly not something that is taught at institutions that train modern
classical musicians (I was lucky that my second teacher put great
emphasis on training improvisational skills too, but then I did not go
to any of these institutions; I had private lessons). but musicians of
the past were expected to be able to improvise.
you
should also remember that there were no recording devices at the time
most classical composers lived. so what could they do when they wanted
some of the improvised music they played to audiences to be played by
others? they wrote it down, but after it was played, not before.
during
the romantic era genius was seen as being superior to skill. it was
then that improvisation started to vanish from musical performances; the
"genius" of the composer suddenly became all-important. what was
written down now was a holy cow. this attitude towards notated music has
remained until today. in recent years the interest in improvisation in
classical music had a little revival, mostly due to the rise of historically informed performance
Edited by BaldJean - October 16 2018 at 03:32
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
I didn't like it when Adrian Belew joined King Crimson. The music got a little silly.
Same here. I like Belew's solo albums, but in Crimson he tries too hard to be weird and comes off like a poor mans David Byrne. I'd also add Tony Levin, love his Chapman Stick work but have never liked his bass playing, too funk for my taste.
Novalis and the totally uninspired
Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans
for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically
much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for
lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush
fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this
solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way
every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
This really doesn't make any sense. If Peart never
had an inspiration, then he never would have learned to play the drums
or he merely would have become a studio player, playing for other
people. I'm not taking issue with you not caring for Peart. That's fine
but improvisation is not necessarily the same as inspiration. To call
Neil uninspired is just plain wrong. If you want to call him
non-improvisational then yeah, that's not really his style, although he
still improvised a little bit at times.
I will quote the dictionary for the meaning of "inspiration".
inspiration
ɪnspɪˈreɪʃ(ə)n/< width="14" ="" height="14">
noun
noun: inspiration
1.
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.
"Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration"
the quality of being inspired.
"a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display"
a person or thing that inspires.
plural noun: inspirations
"he is an inspiration to everyone"
divine influence, especially that supposed to have led to the writing of the Bible.
2.
a sudden brilliant or timely idea.
It
is this second meaning I am talking of when calling Neil Peart
"uninspired". An inspired drummer comes up with the unexpected when
drumming. Neil Peart does not.
Peart was incapable of coming up with "sudden
brilliant or timely ideas" while creating drums parts for 19 studio
albums and countless live performances? Really?
If
you don't like Peart (and it's obvious you don't) then just come out
and say so. Don't try to justify it by cherry picking the definition you
want (and being, oh by the way, dead wrong to boot).
Sigh; I knew this would come from Rush fans. They would (deliberately?) misunderstand me.
I am not talking about creating drum
parts, I am talking about playing them. Peart will play the same fill-in
at the same time every time a certain song is played. I call that "lack
of inspiration". The drummer is the musician with the most freedom in a band; just listen to how jazz drummers play. If a drummer does not use this freedom he is uninspired.
Novalis and the totally uninspired
Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans
for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically
much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for
lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush
fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this
solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way
every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
This really doesn't make any sense. If Peart never
had an inspiration, then he never would have learned to play the drums
or he merely would have become a studio player, playing for other
people. I'm not taking issue with you not caring for Peart. That's fine
but improvisation is not necessarily the same as inspiration. To call
Neil uninspired is just plain wrong. If you want to call him
non-improvisational then yeah, that's not really his style, although he
still improvised a little bit at times.
I will quote the dictionary for the meaning of "inspiration".
inspiration
ɪnspɪˈreɪʃ(ə)n/< width="14" ="" height="14">
noun
noun: inspiration
1.
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.
"Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration"
the quality of being inspired.
"a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display"
a person or thing that inspires.
plural noun: inspirations
"he is an inspiration to everyone"
divine influence, especially that supposed to have led to the writing of the Bible.
2.
a sudden brilliant or timely idea.
It
is this second meaning I am talking of when calling Neil Peart
"uninspired". An inspired drummer comes up with the unexpected when
drumming. Neil Peart does not.
Peart was incapable of coming up with "sudden brilliant or timely ideas" while creating drums parts for 19 studio albums and countless live performances? Really?
If you don't like Peart (and it's obvious you don't) then just come out and say so. Don't try to justify it by cherry picking the definition you want (and being, oh by the way, dead wrong to boot).
90% of my choices would involve singers…but I’ll go for something a bit different.
Judas Priest had a string of terrific drummers in the 70’s, then David Holland joined in 1979. Maybe he had spent his talent-wad on Trapeze, but he was such a boring time-keeper with almost no fills, rolls, anything. Granted, Priest’s stuff during his tenure was often classic, including their biggest FM hard-rock hits as well as some of my favorites by the band, but I can only imagine how much better songs like “Freewheel Burning” and such would’ve sounded with a more adventurous drummer and not a dull metronome. Him leaving in the late 80’s helped the band’s brief resurgence with Painkiller.
Then the awful sex offences and imprisonment in 2004 made him such a pariah, his name was never brought up concerning the current re-interest in the band and their legacy. When he died this past January, nobody blinked an eye…it was like he never existed in the first place. If somehow Judas Priest wind up in the R&RHOF (I know, not that it matters), I doubt David Holland’s name will be included despite playing drums on the songs most people know them for. I try not to think of the guy while hearing “Breaking the Law”, “You’ve Got Another Thing Coming” and such, but after awhile I notice the plain drum beats, then think of the guy, and what he did later in life…
WURD. Seriously. After Les Binks, Holland is the worst drummer they could have had. Thank God Travis joined in later. I dislike that Travis is so fill happy but anything better than more mechanical than a drum machine Holland.
While not a ruinous replacement, Jabs stepping in for Uli Roth took a lot out of the band. You don't want to hear his stabs at We'll Burn The Sky. Wait, actually with all due respect to Meine and Rudy Schenker, Uli Roth pretty much made the band. Only he screamed out genius in the entire lineup and when he was gone, they gradually became a dull, albeit far more successful, band.
Novalis and the totally uninspired Hartwig Biereichel on drums.
Haha, I jump on your other suggestion. I agree Hartwig Biereichel is an amazingly bad drummer in such an otherwise good band, but there was never any Novalis without Biereichel so it's hard to say he "ruined" them for anyone. More likely is that without him the band would never have existed because I think on a personal level he was quite central and important for them.
Novalis and the totally uninspired
Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans
for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically
much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for
lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush
fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this
solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way
every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
This really doesn't make any sense. If Peart never
had an inspiration, then he never would have learned to play the drums
or he merely would have become a studio player, playing for other
people. I'm not taking issue with you not caring for Peart. That's fine
but improvisation is not necessarily the same as inspiration. To call
Neil uninspired is just plain wrong. If you want to call him
non-improvisational then yeah, that's not really his style, although he
still improvised a little bit at times.
I will quote the dictionary for the meaning of "inspiration".
inspiration
ɪnspɪˈreɪʃ(ə)n/< width="14" ="" height="14">
noun
noun: inspiration
1.
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.
"Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration"
the quality of being inspired.
"a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display"
a person or thing that inspires.
plural noun: inspirations
"he is an inspiration to everyone"
divine influence, especially that supposed to have led to the writing of the Bible.
2.
a sudden brilliant or timely idea.
It
is this second meaning I am talking of when calling Neil Peart
"uninspired". An inspired drummer comes up with the unexpected when
drumming. Neil Peart does not.
Novalis and the totally uninspired Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
This really doesn't make any sense. If Peart never had an inspiration, then he never would have learned to play the drums or he merely would have become a studio player, playing for other people. I'm not taking issue with you not caring for Peart. That's fine but improvisation is not necessarily the same as inspiration. To call Neil uninspired is just plain wrong. If you want to call him non-improvisational then yeah, that's not really his style, although he still improvised a little bit at times.
OK, no problem. I'm not trying to get in to a fight here, just stating my own preferences and opinions which are just as valid as yours. You guys like improvisation, I don't : and incidentally, I've been a recording and performing musician for over 40 years and have 8 album releases out there so my musical qualifications are probably just as valid as yours - it's just two different personal opinions about one aspect of music and really nothing to get upset about.
you misunderstand me. I am not talking about liking or not liking improvisation. I am pointing out that much of what you believe to be composed is actually improvised
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Novalis and the totally uninspired Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
If there's one thing which makes a musician stand out from the crowd it's being able to play the same thing twice - so many musos just can't do that including some very famous ones. As for Peart being an uninspired drummer - well, each to their own I suppose and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. At least it keeps the discussion interesting...
I totally disagree. Being able to play the same thing twice is what playing composed music is all about, so it is very basic. But for a solo, where in my opinion a musician has the chance to let his imagination flow and improvise like hell, this is extremely boring and uninspired.
By the way: Most classical composers, for example Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, were great improvisors. Many of their compositions were originally improvised and only afterwards noted down. And THIS is what makes a great musician: To be able to remember what you improvised and write it down.
Hiya,
As I say : each to their own and differences in opinion are what keeps a discussion interesting.
Personally it really does my head in when someone like Gilmour comes along with a performance of say "Time" and plays the solo completely differently from what I've known and loved for forty years. Gary Moore was always guilty of that too - he'd play all these great songs and then improvise for 10 minutes widdling mindlessly in an improvised solo which was basically just dull and uninteresting and nothing like the one on the original song which I had grown to love. Compare those two to someone like Petrucci for example who can deliver the same complex pieces note for note time and time again...
On the other hand, the jazz guitarist Martin Taylor is a great improvisor and one of the most skilled players I've ever heard who can also repeat the most complex pieces note for note. I don't know what Mozarts or Beethovens thoughts are/were on improvisation but I like Beethovens piano sonatas and Mozarts symphonies just as they are and wouldn't like to hear improvised versions of them.
Anyway as I say again, it's all just differences of opinion and no offence intended to you...
ahem. I would like to explicate what Friede said.
first of all: I am a classically trained pianist and also have training in harmonics and composition, so I know what I am talking about.
the way I understand you you seem to think that improvised music is somehow inferior to composed music. maybe you think it is not as complex or structured as composed music. this is, however, not true at all; an improvised piece can be just as complex as a composed piece. or maybe you are a follower of the genius cult of the romantic era. or maybe you just aren't very adventurous. I as a true Sagittarian am however very adventurous, and so is Friede as a true Aquarian (this sense of adventure is what keeps our relationship going).
you also have some misinterpretations about sonatas. you think they are all totally composed. however, classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven left room for improvised solo cadences, usually in the 3rd movement. they wrote down these cadences afterwards, but originally they were improvised.
what's more: many classical pianists wrote their own cadences which they and other pianists play when performing a certain sonata. so when someone plays for example Mozart it is only Mozart up to a certain point. the French-Canadian pianist Marc-André Hamelin, probably the most technically skilled pianist of today, is very well known for this. his skill is absolutely breathtaking; he likes to play very complicated pieces and make them even more complicated by additions of his own
Edited by BaldJean - October 15 2018 at 05:39
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Novalis and the totally uninspired Hartwig Biereichel on drums. And I know I will get flak from Rush fans for this, but Neil Peart is also totally uninspired, though technically much better than Biereichel. But great technique does not make up for lack of inspiration. Peart is the main reason I don't like Rush.
Rush fans will of course point out the famous Neil Peart drum solo, but this solo actually only proves my point. It is played exactly the same way every time he plays it; not a bit of improvisation at all.
If there's one thing which makes a musician stand out from the crowd it's being able to play the same thing twice - so many musos just can't do that including some very famous ones. As for Peart being an uninspired drummer - well, each to their own I suppose and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. At least it keeps the discussion interesting...
I totally disagree. Being able to play the same thing twice is what playing composed music is all about, so it is very basic. But for a solo, where in my opinion a musician has the chance to let his imagination flow and improvise like hell, this is extremely boring and uninspired.
By the way: Most classical composers, for example Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, were great improvisors. Many of their compositions were originally improvised and only afterwards noted down. And THIS is what makes a great musician: To be able to remember what you improvised and write it down.
Hiya,
As I say : each to their own and differences in opinion are what keeps a discussion interesting.
Personally it really does my head in when someone like Gilmour comes along with a performance of say "Time" and plays the solo completely differently from what I've known and loved for forty years. Gary Moore was always guilty of that too - he'd play all these great songs and then improvise for 10 minutes widdling mindlessly in an improvised solo which was basically just dull and uninteresting and nothing like the one on the original song which I had grown to love. Compare those two to someone like Petrucci for example who can deliver the same complex pieces note for note time and time again...
On the other hand, the jazz guitarist Martin Taylor is a great improvisor and one of the most skilled players I've ever heard who can also repeat the most complex pieces note for note. I don't know what Mozarts or Beethovens thoughts are/were on improvisation but I like Beethovens piano sonatas and Mozarts symphonies just as they are and wouldn't like to hear improvised versions of them.
Anyway as I say again, it's all just differences of opinion and no offence intended to you...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.340 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.