Top Comments
All Comments (22)
-
How cool!! I think it's great that someone undertook to perform this transcription, this outlandish relic from an earlier age. I don't understand all the sourpuss comments. The pianists aren't out of sync. It's not perfect but who in the world could play this thing perfectly? I think it's a very good effort!
-
BBBRRRAAAVVVOOO... e basta...
-
AMO!!! consegui (
resumir em 3 letras o que sinto por essa genialiade...)
-
Ma che stupida idea Gottshalk fu un pionere nel suo tempo per le sue idee originali che saranno poi riprese in pieno Novecento
-
WITH BETTER PIANOS THAT WERE IN TUNE AND BETTER MICS AND BETTER MIC PLACEMENT (WITHOUT THE WIND BLOWING ON THEM) AND A LOT MORE REHEARSAL - THIS MIGHT COULD WORK - I'LL BET GOTTSCHALK PULLED IT OFF CORRECTLY.
-
All these critics, this was not an easy task and took quite an effort. I will agree the recording was not good made this performance appear as it did. It is extremely obvious all the music critics here know absolutely nothing about Gottschalk and his unique works.
-
speechless. seems a great waste of time and effort...
-
This would work better if:
1. The pianos were in tune.
2. You could hear more than one or two pianos.
3. The pianist could play together.
4. The transcription didn't suck.
5. Tannhauser were written to be played on pianos.
What's next? Haendel's Messiah on 20 harpsichords? The Barber of Seville on 16 accordions?
-
Oh my. This is why transcriptions are always fraught with difficulty. With perhaps the exception of J.S. Bach a lot of symphonic material written for Orchestra is best left to the Orchestra.
Though I do appreciate - well - the novelty of this attempt I guess.



They are very much out of sync. Really a stupid idea.
deluzon 2 years ago 4
unnecessary
Angelillo36 3 years ago 4