Lowell Liebermann - Gargoyles for Piano, Op. 28 (1989) [Score-Video]

[@naphtanaptha]

I cannot say how happy I am to have found these pieces, and this composer. these are phenomenal. absolutely incredible energy and vigour in the fast ones, and beautiful harmonies and atmosphere in the slow(ish) ones. also if I have ever doubted Yuja wangs artistic validity, I hereby stop. this recording is breathtaking and oozes pure artistry and understanding of the work out of every note played.

[@MichaelConwayBaker]

Absolutely terrific. Fabulous performance.

[@pantoleonantonio9653]

1st mov. 00:00 2nd mov. 1:47 3rd mov. 4:07 4th mov. 6:26

[@공이름-t7m]

Ťĥåņķ ŷöų

[@idcntunderstand9991]

bless you

[@lockjiang]

I could imagine how No. 2 would be like, if Horowitz is to play it, with clarity of the runs of each notes, just as he plays the Moszkowski Etudes, Op.72.

[@Sehr_Langsam]

마지막 A로 끝나는거 뭔가 공허하면서도..심장이 쿵하는 기분. 유자왕은 어떤 작곡가의 곡을 치더라도 찰떡같다 진짜ㅜㅜ

[@FIOFIOKA]

Gargoyles is Liebermann's Op. 29 I believe (I am actually in search of a good recording of Liebermann's Op. 28 - Chamber Concerto No.1 for violin, piano and string quartet (1989) - on youtube)

[@mertkarabey]

Yes; you are right! Liebermann's own website also gives the opus number as 29.

[@krystianmydowski3815]

Plil

[@Composer_Pianist]

The titel upload is titeld Op.28 , but the score is Op.29. Thanks for the upload tho !

[@tatsuhelma]

Most people likes fourth one most, but third one is my favorite

[@TempodiPiano]

the end is eccentric

[@Nomain1]

sheer beauty

[@calebhu6383]

4:50

[@none5020]

This is super cool!!

[@stacia6678]

8:52 - fin - The end of Mvt 4 is super weird.. it just suddenly stops, as if there is more to the piece but he just decided to end it there

[@stacia6678]

8:52

[@br_arba]

It is a half cadence, normal thing

[@calebhu6383]

8:05

[@stacia6678]

@Justin Ohara same

[@성운-k8b]

Minecraft Warden theme

[@onahkim5517]

of course, only Yuja Wang can play most perfectly... 이곡에서 3악장 왠지 요정같은데... 괴물이 아니라.. 나도 나중에 꼭 배우고 말태다! 4 악장은 해리포터 느낌이 쪼금 드는건 뭐지.. ㅋ

[@autsni]

Yeah man, she's great

[@조경순-k4e]

구스범스 느낌....?ㅎㅋㅋ

[@길가던뚱냥이]

중간에 광고 선 넘는거 아닌가..

[@stormwatcher1299]

4:07 is very familiar to those who listen to Ghostly Podcast.

[@javierledesma3441]

His melodies are almost beautiful and almost memorable.

[@sgwinenoob2115]

basically prokofiev updated a little bit

[@f.p.2010]

shuddup

[@chiara.navammb]

*almost*

[@TyronTention]

@@sgwinenoob2115Eh Prokofiev is insanely memorable and he writes really beautiful melodies.

[@tackontitan]

Am I the only one who thinks the ending of no. 4 was a bit sloppy? I know it's a live performance but some of those octaves didn't quite hit right.

[@paulstrickler5684]

Yes.

[@nikolausgerszewski2086]

1989 is a bit late for this music. it could have been written even before 1920.it's basically Post-Debussy, like Bartok or Prokovjeff.

[@GNGianopoulos]

Except no one wrote it then, and it was written in 1989, by a living composer. There are no date limitations to aesthetic preference, and this is the most performed contemporary solo piano work - one of the few that actually made it into the repertoire from the last 60 years. That's a greater accomplishment than anything most of us will ever do.

[@nikolausgerszewski2086]

@@GNGianopoulos categorically: an artist shouldn't have 'aesthetic preferences'. the creative process is one to follow, not to lead. it should be driven by curiosity. that's how the work becomes a truthful testimony of your own creative drive, instead of just an expression of your taste. making it to the contemporary repertoire isn't an archievement; the only valid archievement for an artist is discovery.

[@Snipely]

@@GNGianopoulos you had me at "except no one wrote it then".. that's a *mic drop* on its own.

[@naphtanaptha]

@@nikolausgerszewski2086 even if we accept the premise that arts only purpose is novelty, then the claim that this can't be artistically new and respectable even if it isnt stylistically is just preposterous and frankly reactionary.

[@nikolausgerszewski2086]

@@naphtanaptha style is the result of a creative process. how can anything be 'artistically' new without being stylistically new? new wine in old wineskins? I'd be careful throwing around terms like 'reactionary'. Those might fall back on yourself.

[@써잇]

6:26