Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Debussy - Toccata from Pour le Piano

Debussy - Toccata from Pour le Piano
Closing statement:

I was asked to bring an utterly impartial close to this, by. I've done my best.

Tough call. The tempo concern in particular is, if anything, even more subjective than some of the complex debates over at FPC.

In evaluating the debate, I do not consider any 'supermajority'. This absolutely is not a vote. And thus, Tony1 made excellent specific, erudite comments to explain his oppose rationale, which have considerable weight.

However... as a Featured Article is not expected to be 'perfect', similarly, a Featured Sound should not be. It has to be amazingly good, but it can of course be improved. With this whole new ball-game of FS, currently our criteria are evolving. I believe that this sound file is "considered to be [one of] the best articles sounds in Wikipedia" (to borrow from the FA page). I see no specific reasons to reject it in Featured sound criteria. In summary: it ain't perfect, but it is fucking good - and the consensus seems to support that. (Consensus can change; relist and re-evaluation is always an option.)  Chzz  ► 02:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Appears in Pour le piano - although I'm concerned with mic levels (again), and the volume of the last two chords still makes me pissy to this day, the rest of the piece isn't quite disastrous. :)


 * Nominate and support. &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest this stunning recording would be perfect for the first Featured sound. Wow! Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *blush* &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jaw Drops Stunning. Just freaking stunning.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lolwut Did you know that I almost didn't upload this? &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I said "fabulous" to the Chopin, and I think I've just run out of superlatives (at least without looking some up). I can forgive the volume peak clipping at the end of that because of the quality of what went before. Superb. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When in doubt Google "list of superlatives"  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I seriously almost didn't upload this. It doesn't sound rushed to you? &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The speed makes it blissful. See, you can never run out of superlatives.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, when you're really talented, you're very sensitive to your own flaws, in part because that's how you need to be to get even better. To us people without your talent, our jaws simply hit the floor in amazement long before then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said Adam.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A good performance overall, but the tempo fluctuates a bit (which is apparently how it's meant to be), and there are a few flubs due to the excessive speed (especially around 00:48, where you play a wrong note and then proceed to go even faster (perhaps due to nerves?) I certainly wouldn't use this recording as the first featured sound, TBH. Graham 87  09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comments Oppose: I hadn't heard this wonderful and extremely difficult movement for years. The book by Roy Howat, the Scottish pianist, makes good reading about how to interpret Debussy, especially from a performance-practice point of view. But the piano is not my instrument and I know little about "reverse engineering" this performance style; so my comments, which mainly concern dynamics and articulation, are off the cuff. I do know that it's generally accepted D. was fussy about his dynamic indications. At 0:13, you remembered you were in the middle of a longish crescendo, and because you hadn't gathered sufficient volume thus far, suddenly whacked it on half way through one bar. In that same passage, the LH has alternate accents and staccato marks, strong to weak: probably each accented eighth-note needs to be almost joined up to the staccato note that follows (I can't think of how else it could be done); I hear little difference in your treatment of the subsequent two bars, where all of the LH chords are marked staccato. I think the problem is over-pedalling, which obscures his articulation markings—blurs them. Four bars later, at about 0:18, he changes suddenly from forte to piano, yet there is no sudden reduction in volume (it is important, I think ... almost a dramatic "echo"). At 0:21, the LH quarter-notes should be almost lugubriously legato, but are not. Along with the RH 16th-notes, they are grouped by the phrase-marks into two-bar segments: I suspect this flags not only an articulative breath, but how the music should breathe in terms of push and pull. Unsure, but note the conservative periodicity of the whole work: four- and eight-bar phrases (see the hiccough extra (5th) bar just before the first pp?). The changes in articulation and dynamics reinforce this conservative periodicity, but you don't obey them. Funnily enough, the whorls of impressionist notes do have to be finely etched into these periods, often with sudden and precise changes. As Graham points out, at 0:49 a wrong note intrudes: a few bars later you lose confidence as a result, and it becomes nervously skittish and rushed. There's a minor wrong note at 1:03, and another around 1:44. At 1:35, it's a little too blurred for me. 1:55, the critical octave C-naturals are lost. At 1:59, you anticipate the pp—first in the LH, then in the RH; the pp, in the subsequent bar, is marked "subito" (suddenly). It's now anything but sudden. 2:33, the RH needs to be softer to bring out the LH motif. Some lovely accumulations of power in the 3:20s. The very high notes: that piano does not take them well—shrillness; it's meant to be beautiful. The very last chord is marked fff (it was already triple forte, but just to make sure, he shoved the marking in again). You back off it an play it suddenly mezzo piano. I'm not opposing, although I should; there are a few good things about it ... good tempo. But if this becomes a featured sound, I'd like to hear you re-record it and re-submit it before long, taking seriously the indications in the score. Much slow, repeated rehearsal of short segments is required before this becomes too public. Again, it is very very difficult music, but "music performance is a blood sport", as a conservatoire dean once told me: it's true. Tony  (talk)  11:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, Tony - in hindsight, most of your points about tempo and dynamics are valid, and, in fact, all of your concerns about dynamics have already been addressed, in my last few practice sessions.
 * I would like to point out, however, that I have played this piece for some of the most esteemed pianists and educators in the country, and none have given me a review as long and detailed this.
 * I'm not offended by your comments - please don't take it the wrong way. I'm only concerned about your standards for FS, and whether they are reachable by mundane Wikipedians like myself. I understand your desire for perfection (yes, not just on the note level, but on the musical level as well). But is now the right time, while FS is just starting to grow? &mdash;  La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It sounds great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * La Pianista has indicated that there may be another performance of this uploaded in a few months, but it would be from a live perfomance, and therefore there would only be one take. In the spirit of not ripping each others' throats out perhaps it would be best to wait and see if that materializes. At 5-2 this doesn't have a super-majority right now, so if nothing changes, this won't pass. I still think it sounds spectacular, but if in two months we get an even more spectacular version, that would just be a plus in everyone's opinion, yes?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Check your math: 5/7 > 2/3, hence it is a supermajority. If we get a better version, we could delist and replace then, we shouldn't be bound by a theoretical improvement that may or may not be possible at some unknown time in the future. 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
 * I concur. Carry on as you would - if a better version comes along, I'll certainly upload. :) &mdash;  La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mind was not strong at 2:00 AM there. I was thinking 3/4 ratio instead of 2/3 ratio. My bad.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think its beautiful recording. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wow, absolutely incredible. How am I just listening to this nomination today? Great work.  Jujutacular  talk 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

