Firth of Forth: piano/vocal solo version

[Aidan]

I don't care much for her singing style, but as a whole, this is an accomplished version of the Genesis classic.

 

[video:youtube]

[dje31]

Agreed, her playing is quite nice...but she sings with a nasally "vocal fry."

[mate stubb]

That's one of my favorite piano pieces to play. She did that well.

[Markyboard]

I like it. I think she's singing with what she has - nothing more to it.

[Michael Wright]

That was great. Thanks for posting it Aidan!

[Moonglow]

That's one of my favorite piano pieces to play. She did that well.

+1

 

I keep this song in semi-regular rotation in my practice regimen. Thanks for sharing Aidan, although from the thread title I initially expected to hear perhaps a slightly different song.

[dje31]

Sorry if it came off snarky in my description of her voice. Not my taste, as Aidan hinted at...but I did listen before agreeing with him.

 

But she plays really, really well.

[Redknife]

What a great little opportunity to appreciate and think about one of my favorite songs. Not offering a critique. Thanks for posting,

[cphollis]

I wonder how they recorded that piano -- it seems to have a unique presence, even on my crappy built-in laptop speaker.

[PianoMan51]

OMG, there were TWO women who listened to early Genesis! And this one liked the version about booze.

 

[video:youtube]

[Moonglow]

I wonder how they recorded that piano -- it seems to have a unique presence, even on my crappy built-in laptop speaker.

+1

 

IIRC, the piano in the original recording had a rather unique character, as well.

[stillearning]

OMG, there were TWO women who listened to early Genesis! And this one liked the version about booze.

 

[video:youtube]

 

That was beautiful.

[joegerardi]

Actually, I didn't like it- there's no dynamism to her playing, everything is the same flat volume.

 

There's a lot of life to that piece: when the bass descends, it should stand out; it takes your attention. Same for when the melody jumps an octave- it jumps that octave for a reason, and should be accented accordingly. Here, the music was just kind of "meh..."

 

As to her voice, she just one of those typical, nasal, drone-y singers so prevalent today. They mostly sound like they're taking too much Ritalin.

 

The Lucretia lady really nailed it though.

 

..Joe

[Losendoskeys]

Actually, I didn't like it- there's no dynamism to her playing, everything is the same flat volume.

 

There's a lot of life to that piece: when the bass descends, it should stand out; it takes your attention. Same for when the melody jumps an octave- it jumps that octave for a reason, and should be accented accordingly. Here, the music was just kind of "meh..."

 

As to her voice, she just one of those typical, nasal, drone-y singers so prevalent today. They mostly sound like they're taking too much Ritalin.

 

The Lucretia lady really nailed it though.

 

..Joe

I'm with Joe though I really don't like either singing style.

It's not a love song and I don't generally like women singing prog.

Good efforts thought and I wish some of my piano technique was as good.

[Paughrock]

I don't generally like women singing prog.

 

Lol...this reminds me of the old saying "prog...a great way to meet guys..."

 

I went through a yes/rush phase for about 2 months when I was 15, then I discovered girls and I never listened to prog ever again...the fact that 2 girls are covering Genesis shows that the times have indeed changed since I was a teenager.

[joegerardi]

Well, except Annie Haslam...

 

..Joe

[Markyboard]

I don't generally like women singing prog.

 

I went through a yes/rush phase for about 2 months when I was 15, then I discovered girls and I never listened to prog ever again...

 

What this thing you call "girls"?

[Paughrock]

 

, the music was just kind of "meh..."

 

As to her voice, she just one of those typical, nasal, drone-y singers so prevalent today. They mostly sound like they're taking too much Ritalin

 

..Joe

 

this is a totally harsh critique...damn critiques like this piss me off, especially the jab about the Ritalin...check yourself before you make comments like that mate. Sure, you have the right to say whatever you want, but have some respect, you're talking about a real person, not a piece of gear...you aren't the music critic for the Times and she is not playing Carnegie Hall. As to the actual critique itself: what are you listening to the youtube clip through? your i-phone? computer speakers! Because unless you are referencing through somethng beyond the $1000 price point, commenting on her lack of dynamic range on the piano is...well ridiculous really.. She is clearly not a professional artist but someone developing her talent. What she has done is pretty good, and given the choice of repetoire, pretty impressive really... if you don't like it, just move on.

 

Off to take some Ritalin!

[joegerardi]

Blow me, sparky.

 

And if you think about it, YOUR post is a critique of my critique, so, before you excoriate someone for doing something, you might want to make sure you're not doing it yourself, because that smacks of hypocrisy.

 

Someone puts something out as a performance, they open themselves to a critique, regardless of professional status. That includes a middling performance, a lack of singing technique, and the prevalence to sound like one of thousands today who just drone on singing through their nose, with a banal, whiny voice.

 

And as a matter of interest, I listened to the vid through my computer, which has a pair of nearfield monitors as my speakers, as it's part of my studio.

 

You might want to take some lessons- dynamic range has nothing to do with volume or the quality of the speakers: it's the variation between low and high WITHIN a piece. That's the "dynamism" I referenced: she played everything at one volume, simply playing the notes, all the way through. This piece should NOT be played that way- there's timbre changes, peaks and valleys, and being flat like that, it just cuts the legs out from under it, making it just another player crapping out another boring piece of music...

 

I stand by my post. You're welcome to say what YOU want, and I will defend it as I want.

 

..Joe

[stillearning]

For what it's worth, I agree, there certainly could be more dynamics in her performance. But I also think "...just another player crapping out another boring piece of music..." is a bit over the top, no? I thought it was a respectable performance of what I consider to be a fairly well composed piece of music, which I also enjoy playing. Just my opinion.

[joegerardi]

Very well composed. The piece isn't boring, the performance was, and another example of how Tony is an underappreciated composer AND player.

 

I've been playing that since the mid-70's and it takes a lot more than just knowing the notes to get it right.

 

Hell, I saw a performance of the Rach 3 a month ago at the Savannah Phil, and it was boring as hell: the player played all the notes, but had no feel for Rachmaninoff, and thus is was boring. My date for the evening - a violist - felt the same way.

 

It's ain't the tool, it's the craftsman.

 

..Joe

[PianoMan51]

If you listen to Tony's original, he's playing this, I think, on an RMI or something close to it. No velocity sensing. No dynamics other than what you get from a volume pedal. And it works because it's faintly 'harpsichordy' (in a time when harpsichord was cool for Pop music) and because it's often embedded in the band sound. Maybe this is what the two ladies were trying to emulate. What they may not realize is that nobody who played an RMI to emulate a real piano really wanted to play an RMI, but that was all there was.

 

When we come forward almost 50 years and play it as a great piece of music on a real piano then I expect what Joe expects: a musical performance. Dynamics and phrasing.

[mate stubb]

If you listen to Tony's original, he's playing this, I think, on an RMI or something close to it. No velocity sensing. No dynamics other than what you get from a volume pedal.

 

Huh??

 

[video:youtube]

 

[Joe Muscara]

If you listen to Tony's original, he's playing this, I think, on an RMI or something close to it. No velocity sensing. No dynamics other than what you get from a volume pedal.

 

Huh??

 

[video:youtube]

He was talking about Firth of Forth, not Firth of Fifth, Moe.

[Michael Wright]

Pretty good sounding RMI.

[PianoMan51]

Haven't listened to the record in 40 years, but the live versions are all RMI.

[Michael Wright]

Haven't listened to the record in 40 years, but the live versions are all RMI.

Ah. Now I have to go dig them out!

[PianoMan51]

Haven't listened to the record in 40 years, but the live versions are all RMI.

Ah. Now I have to go dig them out!

 

Back atcha! (because one is never enough)

[mate stubb]

He was talking about Firth of Forth, not Firth of Fifth, Moe.

 

Not aware of a Genesis tune of that name, only a Scottish estuary. The live version may be played on that abominable RMI, but the original was being discussed - AP all the way, with dynamics if you please.

[nadroj]

If you listen to Tony's original, he's playing this, I think, on an RMI or something close to it. No velocity sensing. No dynamics other than what you get from a volume pedal. And it works because it's faintly 'harpsichordy' (in a time when harpsichord was cool for Pop music) and because it's often embedded in the band sound. Maybe this is what the two ladies were trying to emulate. What they may not realize is that nobody who played an RMI to emulate a real piano really wanted to play an RMI, but that was all there was.

 

When we come forward almost 50 years and play it as a great piece of music on a real piano then I expect what Joe expects: a musical performance. Dynamics and phrasing.

 

On the Genesis documentary I linked in the documentary thread Tony talked about this. Said he never liked playing it live often because the instruments he used couldn't be dynamic. He couldn't do the piece justice. He also just hated performing on the spot. Always considered himself more of a composer than a performer.