It's beautiful!!!!!! I truli enjoy hear Mrs Uchida. My 7 year old son takes piano lesson and I wish one day he would meet Mrs Uchida to get some inspiration from someone so amazing.
The first question is: Is MrGrevy's assertion that the income from live performance, merchandising, and such, sufficient to motivate artists to produce 'enough' art even if recordings of the music are free? That's an empirical claim. Get data.
Second question: If no, then do we use a patent system or a bounty system, where persons or groups pay in beforehand into a fund and then art that becomes popular gets paid from that fund on the basis of its popularity? That's what I'd do.
Obviously, chasing down all that intellectual property across countries and across the internet is not working so hot, and particularly hurts those people who aren't rich enough to have lawyers.
This is a good, interesting problem, but you two are just being dickholes so you'll never solve it.
The problem is: How do you maintain an incentive structure for artistic production while preserving the enormous value creation that comes of everyone being able to access hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of music on this website, for free?
Poly, his analogy is bad, but so is yours. If I steal your loaf of bread, you don't have it anymore, but that's not the case with music, so its not exactly 'theft.'
this was removed from another poster. Gee I guess Mozart is angry about copyright issues?? People will seriously burn in hell over that disgusting tedious nonsense.
Much as I love free music, I understand that musicians must pay rent.
Why exactly is it "disgusting nonsense" that people defend their intellectual property rights?
Do you think copyright law is unjust nonsense, or does it suddenly cease to apply when information is transmitted via cable rather than radio waves or ink? Perhaps there's an argument to be made, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.
Yes, yes, I'm listening to this recording too; what baffles me is the sense of enlightenment.
@polymath7 Ruining peoples' lives over copyright infringement is what I was referring to. Who has copyrights to the music of a dead artist? No one should. I dislike the record companies ruining people instead of trying to come up with solutions - the technology is changing, they can't keep up or stay relevant.
Where classical music is concerned, what is usually protected are not compositions but specific *recordings*.
Like this one.
I care absolutely nothing for the financial interests of the record companies themselves; I care about musicians, and I am *vastly* more sympathetic to their financial woes than those who pirate their music.
@polymath7 Well let's see, what about the old comparison to companies who made horse carriages? How were they supposed to compete with affordable cars? The answer is: it's their problem. This is a capitalist society and if your company becomes irrelevant due to technology, you're out of luck. True artists and musicians will create because they have to. Ever hear of indie stuff od live music? Same thing with taping when it became widespread. People still bought tapes and cds.
That is an absolutely terrible and awesomely stupid analogy.
There is a very fundamental difference between the product of one's labor being supplanted by superior competition, and being undermined by theft.
You compound the stupidity with your appeal to capitalism.
That really takes either enormous balls or world class idiocy (If you're too dumb to anticipate what is to follow in the succeeding lines, please give serious consideration to killing yourself).
...alternative product on offer, and there is either no transaction at all or a transaction in which someone's labor is sold by someone else with absolutely no claim to it. What could possibly be less capitalistic?
This also an appeal to the rule of law, which is being flagrantly violated.
What is happening not that a product is becoming obsolete or even that a market model is failing but that a perfectly legitimate law is becoming unenforceable.
Do you consider the very notion of intellectual property unjust? If not, does it somehow suddenly become unjust when cables rather than radio waves are concerned?
"True artists and musicians will create because they have to."
Perhaps, but they also have to eat, and if you think a world in which nearly all musicians must indefinitely keep full time day jobs will not severely compromise their creative capacities and the output of new music, then you are stupider than I dare to imagine.
@polymath7 Yes they have to eat. Ever hear of live music gigs? Huh?? This will improve music by weeding out the no talents like gaga and britney. Your simplistic, pseudo intellectual arguments fall flat. Please show evidence that just because someone downloads something, that they would have necessarily gone out and paid 20$ for it. You can't. If anything, it exposes people to more artists than they would have heard. You are a disgusting shill for the record companies as I suspected. Please die.
@polymath7 Ugh god you seriously never shut up. The ones who are successful WILL make money. DO you not get that either? Live performances/tv appearances, etc etc etc. Your bizarre narrow mindedness is almost sad. I love how your channel is filled to the brim with that evil "free" music. By the way, according to you, once a musician dies, his/her intellectual property rights should not apply, right? I mean they won't be needing money anymore, right?? Think man, think.
@polymath7 Great job at missing the point my loquacious friend. Inbelievable. My point was that as technology improved, people could "steal" music. remember dubbing on boom boxes and home stereos?? People could easily "steal" music by dubbing and giving away the tapes, right? Well, people had to adapt. They didn't try to stop the sale of dubbing equipment you goofy, angry moron. Most importantly, the musicians do NOT lose money. Most of what I download is stuff I would NOT have paid for anyway.
Deceptively simple, but emotionally very hard to play. A lovely, lyrical interpretation. Not only the Romantics make the piano "sing", this, Mozart's most beautiful second movement, does it every time!
@thesir27,I must agree, for I have succomed months ago to this sweet and heretofore unpredictable work.
okicuru12 8 months ago
the greatest of all, mozart is an unexplainable phenomenon
alilapointe1 9 months ago
Soft & Sweet.
amorediahmad 11 months ago
It's beautiful!!!!!! I truli enjoy hear Mrs Uchida. My 7 year old son takes piano lesson and I wish one day he would meet Mrs Uchida to get some inspiration from someone so amazing.
Thank you for sharing your music Mrs Uchida.
fatymorales 11 months ago
It seems to have pieces missing, not complete. Seems to tease in it's resistance to fulfilling what I want it to be.
okicuru12 11 months ago
@okicuru12 ''There are just as many notes as there should be." -M
thesir27 8 months ago
It seems to have pieces missing, not complete.
okicuru12 11 months ago
Forse quanto di piu' bello Mozart abbia mai scritto... difficile da dire comunque, che dire dei magnifici concerti per pianoforte?
stupendi l'uno piu' dell'altro!
BRAVISSIMO
MAGNIFICO
ETERNO
giangra92 1 year ago 3
How did this argument even originate???? o.o
Lawrencelovespiano 1 year ago
Why can't people stop arguing and listen to the beautiful piano?
annikap213 1 year ago 9
The first question is: Is MrGrevy's assertion that the income from live performance, merchandising, and such, sufficient to motivate artists to produce 'enough' art even if recordings of the music are free? That's an empirical claim. Get data.
Second question: If no, then do we use a patent system or a bounty system, where persons or groups pay in beforehand into a fund and then art that becomes popular gets paid from that fund on the basis of its popularity? That's what I'd do.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Obviously, chasing down all that intellectual property across countries and across the internet is not working so hot, and particularly hurts those people who aren't rich enough to have lawyers.
This is a good, interesting problem, but you two are just being dickholes so you'll never solve it.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
You two are making no progress.
The problem is: How do you maintain an incentive structure for artistic production while preserving the enormous value creation that comes of everyone being able to access hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of music on this website, for free?
Poly, his analogy is bad, but so is yours. If I steal your loaf of bread, you don't have it anymore, but that's not the case with music, so its not exactly 'theft.'
hymnofashes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dick
MrStewartpid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
penis
MrStewartpid 1 year ago
this was removed from another poster. Gee I guess Mozart is angry about copyright issues?? People will seriously burn in hell over that disgusting tedious nonsense.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
Much as I love free music, I understand that musicians must pay rent.
Why exactly is it "disgusting nonsense" that people defend their intellectual property rights?
Do you think copyright law is unjust nonsense, or does it suddenly cease to apply when information is transmitted via cable rather than radio waves or ink? Perhaps there's an argument to be made, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.
Yes, yes, I'm listening to this recording too; what baffles me is the sense of enlightenment.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7 Ruining peoples' lives over copyright infringement is what I was referring to. Who has copyrights to the music of a dead artist? No one should. I dislike the record companies ruining people instead of trying to come up with solutions - the technology is changing, they can't keep up or stay relevant.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy
Who has copyrights to the music of a dead artist?
No one indeed
(if that music was written before 1920).
Where classical music is concerned, what is usually protected are not compositions but specific *recordings*.
Like this one.
I care absolutely nothing for the financial interests of the record companies themselves; I care about musicians, and I am *vastly* more sympathetic to their financial woes than those who pirate their music.
polymath7 1 year ago
@MrGrevy
What solutions are companies supposed to come up with? How does one develop a market model to compete with *free*?
Again I stress that I don't give a *damn* about the record companies.
I care whether musicians can make a living from their art, and I care from my own self interest as well as theirs.
Depend upon it my friend, if musicians cannot make living, new music will all but cease to appear.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7 Well let's see, what about the old comparison to companies who made horse carriages? How were they supposed to compete with affordable cars? The answer is: it's their problem. This is a capitalist society and if your company becomes irrelevant due to technology, you're out of luck. True artists and musicians will create because they have to. Ever hear of indie stuff od live music? Same thing with taping when it became widespread. People still bought tapes and cds.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
I.
That is an absolutely terrible and awesomely stupid analogy.
There is a very fundamental difference between the product of one's labor being supplanted by superior competition, and being undermined by theft.
You compound the stupidity with your appeal to capitalism.
That really takes either enormous balls or world class idiocy (If you're too dumb to anticipate what is to follow in the succeeding lines, please give serious consideration to killing yourself).
With piracy, there is no...
polymath7 1 year ago
II.
...alternative product on offer, and there is either no transaction at all or a transaction in which someone's labor is sold by someone else with absolutely no claim to it. What could possibly be less capitalistic?
This also an appeal to the rule of law, which is being flagrantly violated.
What is happening not that a product is becoming obsolete or even that a market model is failing but that a perfectly legitimate law is becoming unenforceable.
Please answer my earlier question:
polymath7 1 year ago
III.
Do you consider the very notion of intellectual property unjust? If not, does it somehow suddenly become unjust when cables rather than radio waves are concerned?
"True artists and musicians will create because they have to."
Perhaps, but they also have to eat, and if you think a world in which nearly all musicians must indefinitely keep full time day jobs will not severely compromise their creative capacities and the output of new music, then you are stupider than I dare to imagine.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7 Yes they have to eat. Ever hear of live music gigs? Huh?? This will improve music by weeding out the no talents like gaga and britney. Your simplistic, pseudo intellectual arguments fall flat. Please show evidence that just because someone downloads something, that they would have necessarily gone out and paid 20$ for it. You can't. If anything, it exposes people to more artists than they would have heard. You are a disgusting shill for the record companies as I suspected. Please die.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@polymath7 Ugh god you seriously never shut up. The ones who are successful WILL make money. DO you not get that either? Live performances/tv appearances, etc etc etc. Your bizarre narrow mindedness is almost sad. I love how your channel is filled to the brim with that evil "free" music. By the way, according to you, once a musician dies, his/her intellectual property rights should not apply, right? I mean they won't be needing money anymore, right?? Think man, think.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@polymath7 Great job at missing the point my loquacious friend. Inbelievable. My point was that as technology improved, people could "steal" music. remember dubbing on boom boxes and home stereos?? People could easily "steal" music by dubbing and giving away the tapes, right? Well, people had to adapt. They didn't try to stop the sale of dubbing equipment you goofy, angry moron. Most importantly, the musicians do NOT lose money. Most of what I download is stuff I would NOT have paid for anyway.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
Deceptively simple, but emotionally very hard to play. A lovely, lyrical interpretation. Not only the Romantics make the piano "sing", this, Mozart's most beautiful second movement, does it every time!
lilythepink123 2 years ago 5
Such a gorgeous interpretation of this movement! I didn't love her first movement as much, but this one is just beautiful. So clean and expressive.
Caramellatta 2 years ago
I'm simply so moved, that there cannot be any words to describe this experience. This is best.
TheJamesalden 2 years ago