Talk:Lang Lang/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Top
There is a general consensus among many music critics that Lang Lang, while talented, is in danger of become a showman with an underdeveloped musicality. Critics especially panned his Carnegie Hall debut and his subsequent tour. They agree, though, that he is bringing in people into classical music who wouldn't ordinary be interested in it. I'm not exactly sure how to work this in without any POV problems though... --Perlman10s 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we need a controversy section, because I know a lot of people don't like him. 24.7.97.75 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any reason to criticize Lang Lang at all, but if there need to be written something it should be rather short and be put in a separate section. In addition, it would be very important to add links to source texts that really do critize Lang Lang. Personal things like "I like him" are not to be part of a Wikipedia article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.26.250 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This is about the worst article on a Classical Pianist I've seen in Wikipedia. My eyes caught the sentence, "His use of rubato, tone color, technique and the excitement of his playing are thought by many to be unrivaled." which is copied virtually word for word from the Vladimir Horowitz article. Much of the article appears to have been written by a press agent, with a few caveats thrown in by Wikipedia members. I'm going to attempt a rewrite. Any objections?THD3 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia at last allows the snobbery attached to classical music to be finally crushed. Exactly the same criticism was applied to Nigel Kennedy and his "brash" way of playing the violin. Lang Lang is a musical genius, let's face it and move on. Music is no longer the preserve of those "refined" enough to appreciate it. Right now I'm listening to Lang Lang performing Mike Oldfield's "Silhouette". The musical purists may scoff, but this is music; entertainment, remember? I'm not going to contribute to the article proper, but I hope to influence those who do, in some small way. Sorry. I forgot my user name, so I'll have to leave this anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.162.114 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Lang Lang disambiguation page?
Currently Lang Lang links to Lang Lang, Victoria. But there is also a Lang Lang webcomic, a Lang Lang character in Steam Detectives and a Lang Lang river. What do people think of Lang Lang being changed into a disambiguation page page (with wiki-info about Lang Lang the pianist moved to "Lang Lang (pianist)" or "Lang Lang (musician)" --EarthFurst 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
60 Minutes
I remember 60 Minutes presented Lang Lang in one show. Might have been two years ago. Thuen 22:02, 25 January 2007.
- And what is "60 Minutes"? Why on Earth millions of Wikipedia readers ought to know that??? --AVM 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- "60 Minutes" is a news-type program shown on American television (although it might be broadcasted elsewhere, too). It's a somewhat popular, or at least well-known, program in this general area, so it's not completely unreasonable for someone to assume that all people are familiar with it.207.109.181.203 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
???
Excuse me, but what exactly happened to the "Criticism" section? --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It got removed, seeing as Lang Lang's Wikipedian fans kept changing it around. Farslayer (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reinstated. Even so, this "Criticism" section is at best a feeble collection of understatements. Nonetheless, it had been deleted, as someone did not fancy it. A pretty bad forecast, if we let 'fans' decide the fate of Wikipedia's contents! We're having enough of Fidel Castro's fans already, for example, who keep trying to 'clean up' his image and will never let him be called a Dictator in this encyclopedia (even if it indeed is the sad truth, like it or not) --AVM (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Virtuoso
"Virtuoso" (in the lead) is perhaps not a neutral term; shall we remove it? See Talk:Li Yundi#Virtuoso?. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. In any case, it was a lie. If that is a virtuoso, then George W. Bush is a Nobel Prize laureate. --AVM (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Peacock tag
I've added a peacock tag to this article. Changes made by what appears to be a single purpose editor (i.e., an editor who only writes on one subject) turned the article into a fan page. I've reverted the most obvious of them. Please leave the tag until all article issues are resolved.THD3 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandalised
The page was badly vandalised, I reverted the vandals edits.81.152.153.4 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Vandals damaging this page really can't be blamed. "Bang Bang" is a vandal of piano music, all the same. --SciCorrector (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim Svejda's View of Lang-Lang Should at Least Be Mentioned
Whether or not you agree with Jim Svejda's reviews (I find his taste to be similar to mine), he has never shied away from full-frontal assaults on what he considers cheap or shallow. He devoted a full episode of his radio show to a systematic dismemberment of Lang-Lang's "talent". The critique wan't just verbal; he played examples of Lang-Lang's performances, tore them apart, then played much-better performances by other pianists to point up the differences. This criticism ought to be mentioned, and a link provided (if it's available on line).
I've been a serious classical listener for more than 40 years, and I can state -- with near-certain certainty -- that Lang-Lang's big bag o' talent is made of the same material as the emperor's new clothes. I'm not kidding when I say that Phyllis Diller is a better classical pianist. (I heard her perform Bach inventions, and her interpretations would have been creditable even for a "name" pianist.)
As to the difficulty of including (what are necessarily subjective) opinions of any artist's work -- what is the point of writing about art without critiquing it? You don't write about scientists without discussing what they contributed. (Of course, the latter is largely objective.) Comments such as the following...
"He's obviously talented. His music's strongly expressive and sincere with no reservation. He can be both bold AND sensitive! If you open your heart to his music and musical expressions, you just can't help being moved and to some, addicted. There're many good pianists, but not all make to "masters" - all masters have distinctive styles besides playing well. You only find this kind of talent once in hundreds of years! With some more life experience, maybe some breaks and "great comebacks", he'll be another great legend who'll be remembered - there's no doubt! (his techniques can already match any of the greatest piano masters you can name of!)"
...cannot be taken seriously. Having heard dozens of pianists, with widely varying styles, over the past 40 years, I can reasonably state that Lang-Lang is the Oakland of pianists -- there's no "there" there. Even my least-favorite pianist, Señor Snooze (Claudio Arrau) is merely boring. Lang-Lang is simply bad.
I doubt future editions of the "Lexicon of Musical Invective" (should anyone pick up Slonimsky's pen) will include disparaging reviews of Lang-Lang. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I too agree. His being mentioned in that august company would be a travesty. Second coming of Liberace. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 02:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
One of a kind!
He's obviously talented. His music's strongly expressive and sincere with no reservation. He can be both bold AND sensitive! If you open your heart to his music and musical expressions, you just can't help being moved and to some, addicted. There're many good pianists, but not all make to "masters" - all masters have distinctive styles besides playing well. You only find this kind of talent once in hundreds of years! With some more life experience, maybe some breaks and "great comebacks", he'll be another great legend who'll be remembered - there's no doubt! (his techniques can already match any of the greatest piano masters you can name of!)
The article reads like it was written by LLs press agent. I've added negative criticism of LL as a counter point. The quotations are from David Hurwitz's review of LL's Rachmaninoff 2nd Concerto recording, and Dan Davis' Amazon review of his Tchaikovsky Concerto recording. THD3 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)THD
- I understand the desire to have criticism to balance things, but both reviews are of the Rachmaninoff recording, and Amazon is hardly a reputable source. And what the heck is a soggy rhythm anyways? I think the both extreme negative and positive reviews are strikingly similar to those that Horowitz received in his early days. People who are being hard on Lang Lang also do not seem to realize that he is a throwback to the glory days of Grand Pianism from the likes of young Vladimir Horowitz, Alfred Cortot, Ignaz Paderewski, Leopold Godowsky, Josef Hofmann, Josef Lhevinne, Ignaz Friedman and even Rachmaninoff himself. They all played with "soggy rhythms" and it's refreshing to hear a modern musician who isn't a metronome but actually understands rubato and timing.74.99.213.103 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Amazon review being referenced is an editorial review, and is written by Dan Davis, a critic who also writes for Classics Today. Also, why complain about the phrase "soggy rhythms" right before you use it to compare Lang Lang to other great pianists? I don't really care one way or the other about him, but a balance of reviews seems appropriate given that he does appear to generate some controversy. Random name 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Three Stooges were also talented. And I believe they were as worthy of applause as "Bang-Bang", perhaps even more so. --AVM (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)