Between two stools

[Ein Heldenleben]

That's why I mentioned them: because they could manage a niftyish bit of classical (I might have added Chick Corea except that he wasn't a 'pop' musician anyway); or, outside piano, Jonny Greenwood (at a pinch - he was described as 'classically trained' at the time R3 was courting him). Nevertheless, their performing careers were in the pop world, not the classical world.

Semprini lived at a time when, in a sense the pop world was not as all-embracing as it is now, which is why he was more obviously 'between two stools': he was 'popular' but never 'pop', and was seriously 'classically trained'. His commercial career included a substantial amount of classical recordings and performances: John's, Wakeman's and Myers's haven't - to my (limited!) knowledge. Singer-songwriters don't by definition, have much time for even a marginally classical career - whatever they may, or may not, be capable of. Among singers, Mario Lanza could be included with Semprini; but there were others who were definitely 'popular' but had decentish tenor (usually) voices: like David Hughes, David Whitfield. Autres temps …

The difference between Mario Lanza and all the crossover rock / light classical pianists you mention (from Elton through to Semprini ) is that Lanza had the voice to be a first rate operatic tenor - by first rate I mean one of the greats - up there with Pavarotti and Domingo. Elton John is a great songwriter and superb rock pianist but he could never have been Vladimir Horowitz- nor would we wish him to be.
Other very good crossover classical pianists / composers :Neil Sedaka and Nina Simone and our very own Peter Skellern

[Ein Heldenleben]

How I wish I could play the piano like any of the luminaries mentioned above! I remember, many years ago, reading a biography of Liberace and discovering that behind all the candelabras, outrageous costumes and razzmatazz was a very fine pianist who had certainly paid his dues as far as hard work went.

Good pianist but when he did play Chopin it wasn’t in the Rubinstein class. On the other hand there’s film of him playing a very tricky left hand boogie- woogie figuration in Dflat - an exceptionally difficult thing to do.Eat your heart out Artur…

[ardcarp]

And there were (are) violinists too. Campoli, Max Jaffa, Stéphane Grappelli

Am I wrong, but wasn't Alfredo Campoli a notch above the 'popular' light classical violinits?

[smittims]

Well, that's a matter of judgement. One would need to hear them all comparatively, and even then we might disagree about which 'notch' they should occupy. I think Campoli was first rate, but the bargain records guide said he was not the right violinist for the Elgar concerto, with which I strongly disagree; I slightly prefer his recording to Heifetz, fine as that is.

I never heard Max Jaffa play anything more challenging than Monte's Czardas, and the nearest I got to hearing Grapelli in 'classical' was his famous 'take' on the first movement of the Bach double concerto with Eddie South. I've no doubt he could play a difficult concerto if he wished, but what of the interpretation? Who can say?.

PS thanks Maclintick for that lovely photo of Mrs. Mills.

[mikealdren]

Yes Campoli was much more than a notch above but had to make a career in difficult times, his light music recordings are wonderful but they did affect his subsequent reputation. I certainly don't agree that he was wrong for the Elgar, his recording is very good.

Max Jaffa wasn't remotely as good as Campoli but he did study professionally like the pianists listed and was a good player.

I did hear Grappelli, he had no formal training but had an extraordinary ease and facility on the violin as do many 'gypsy' players. At the interval of his concert I thought he was marvellous, by the end it started to seem a a bit repetitative.

Among gypsy players, Robbie Lakatos studied formally of course and he's a real crossover artist like Campoli.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes Campoli was much more than a notch above but had to make a career in difficult times, his light music recordings are wonderful but they did affect his subsequent reputation. I certainly don't agree that he was wrong for the Elgar, his recording is very good.

Max Jaffa wasn't remotely as good as Campoli but he did study professionally like the pianists listed and was a good player.

I did hear Grappelli, he had no formal training but had an extraordinary ease and facility on the violin as do many 'gypsy' players. At the interval of his concert I thought he was marvellous, by the end it started to seem a a bit repetitative.

Among gypsy players, Robbie Lakatos studied formally of course and he's a real crossover artist like Campoli.

I met a very distinguished UK violinist who told me he thought Roby Lakatos the greatest living violinist in any genre. He played with the LSO a once and the violin section there couldn’t believe his playing.

[french frank]

I met a very distinguished UK violinist who told me he thought Roby Lakatos the greatest living violinist in any genre. He played with the LSO a once and the violin section there couldn’t believe his playing.

There are still quite a few of the current 'between the stools' musicians, some of whom are accepted by the classical world (Lang Lang?), others aren't (André Rieu - Brussels Royal Conservatoire, Katherine Jenkins - RAM). Of the former, one can discount performers like the Three Tenors, Bryn Terfel &c who have dived into crossover but are still firmly rooted in the mainstream. The latter seem, for whatever reason, to have chosen to stick with the mass audience appeal. Jenkins, for instance seemed once to have had the ambition to become an opera singer when she reached her mid-30s but, now in her early 40s, she or others have decided otherwise.

[Ein Heldenleben]

There are still quite a few of the current 'between the stools' musicians, some of whom are accepted by the classical world (Lang Lang?), others aren't (André Rieu - Brussels Royal Conservatoire, Katherine Jenkins - RAM). Of the former, one can discount performers like the Three Tenors, Bryn Terfel &c who have dived into crossover but are still firmly rooted in the mainstream. The latter seem, for whatever reason, to have chosen to stick with the mass audience appeal. Jenkins, for instance seemed once to have had the ambition to become an opera singer when she reached her mid-30s but, now in her early 40s, she or others have decided otherwise.

I’m not sure I agree with your categories. Lang Lang is a phenomenally gifted classical pianist who has dabbled in other genres to no great effect . Bryn Terfel at the height of his career was amongst the worlds greatest bass baritones who did the odd musical. For me ,like Pinza , his voice is just too big for the West End stage and miking him up is both ridiculous and distortingly anti musical . Katherine Jenkins is a very average singer who could never have made it In opera. The reason Rieu and Jenkins do what they do is that performing Strauss waltzes and singing pop/ Broadway is a lot easier than playing Liszt or singing Wagner and it has greater mass appeal. I’m not knocking either . Anyone who can sell out the Wembley Arena for night after night with £125 ticket prices playing Strauss must know what they are doing - good luck to them.

[Maclintick]

PS thanks Maclintick for that lovely photo of Mrs. Mills.

Couldn't resist it, Smittims, though aware she doesn't qualify in the crossover category along with Semprini, Liberace et al...

Elton John is a great songwriter and superb rock pianist but he could never have been Vladimir Horowitz- nor would we wish him to be. Other very good crossover classical pianists / composers :Neil Sedaka and Nina Simone and our very own Peter Skellern

Neil Sedaka has stellar crossover credentials, attending Juilliard classes from the age of 8, receiving Rubinstein's imprimatur as one of the best high-school pianists of NYC in 1956, and being accepted for the Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow, only to face disqualification by the Soviet authorities when his dangerous Rock'n'Roll proclivities were revealed. Lovely bloke, incidentally, & still going strong at 84.

[french frank]

I’m not sure I agree with your categories. Lang Lang is a phenomenally gifted classical pianist who has dabbled in other genres to no great effect .

Hence the ? for Lang Lang. But there can be a certain amount of :eyeroll: when he's mentioned. His musical gift is not in question, though some find him "flashy" and not as profound as other pianists with perhaps a lesser technique than Lang Lang. I wonder whether it was his technique or his all-round musicianship which awed the orchestral players about Roby Lakatos.

Katherine Jenkins is a very average singer who could never have made it In opera.

She could never have made it as an operatic star. She might have made the WNO chorus if she'd had the power, but that would have been a bit of a come-down - not worth the effort.

[pastoralguy]

Yes Campoli was much more than a notch above but had to make a career in difficult times, his light music recordings are wonderful but they did affect his subsequent reputation. I certainly don't agree that he was wrong for the Elgar, his recording is very good.

Max Jaffa wasn't remotely as good as Campoli but he did study professionally like the pianists listed and was a good player.

I did hear Grappelli, he had no formal training but had an extraordinary ease and facility on the violin as do many 'gypsy' players. At the interval of his concert I thought he was marvellous, by the end it started to seem a a bit repetitative.

Among gypsy players, Robbie Lakatos studied formally of course and he's a real crossover artist like Campoli.

Funnily enough, Mike, that was my impression re Grappelli when I heard him live.

Max Jaffa was leader of the Scottish Orchestra in the 1920’s when he was a teenager. The players couldn’t believe that this child was going to be their leader but he soon won them over with his playing.

Campoli was a wonderful player who had a poor reputation at the BBC due to his light music background, completely unjustified. I remember buying his Lp of the Beethoven concerto on CfP when I was a teenager and found it so different to the Oistrakh and Menuhin Recordings I had already.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Hence the ? for Lang Lang. But there can be a certain amount of :eyeroll: when he's mentioned. His musical gift is not in question, though some find him "flashy" and not as profound as other pianists with perhaps a lesser technique than Lang Lang. I wonder whether it was his technique or his all-round musicianship which awed the orchestral players about Roby Lakatos.



She could never have made it as an operatic star. She might have made the WNO chorus if she'd had the power, but that would have been a bit of a come-down - not worth the effort.

I think Lang Lang is a very musically gifted pianist but is prone to lapses of taste and indeed spectacular car crashes - e,g,his solo proms recital where he dropped an extraordinary number of notes.He did that hideously difficult Rach Bflat prelude and he just couldn’t nail the tricky left hand arpeggios . But then he did a TV masterclass with Barenboim and you could tell the latter was genuinely impressed with his first movement of the Appassionata. It was very well played and in front of the maestro he curbed his flashy tendencies . He’d obviously been practising it night and day.

[french frank]

I think Lang Lang is a very musically gifted pianist but is prone to lapses of taste and indeed spectacular car crashes - e,g,his solo proms recital where he dropped an extraordinary number of notes.He did that hideously difficult Rach Bflat prelude and he just couldn’t nail the tricky left hand arpeggios . But then he did a TV masterclass with Barenboim and you could tell the latter was genuinely impressed with his first movement of the Appassionata. It was very well played and in front of the maestro he curbed his flashy tendencies . He’d obviously been practising it night and day.

I suppose the question might be "What are the two stools here?" - the music played or the audience which appreciates it? Back in the days of Semprini et al there was no "pop" music: there was music that was very popular but it wasn't the kind of music (or performer) that the under 25s would switch on the radio especially to hear. In the case of Lang Lang (and, again, his musical talent is not in dispute) what is the audience which has propelled no fewer than four of his albums into the current "Official" classical chart (not to be confused with the Gramophone classical chart). Vikingur Olafsson has one, Pascal Rogé has one, Benjamin Grosvenor one and Barenboim has one - and one can imagine large enough variable chunks of the 'classical audience buying one of these to qualify it for the charts; but does that audience contain so many devoted fans of Lang Lang that they buy every single album of his? Or is that audience so big that they don't need to buy every album but just buy one or two but the audience for all four separate albums is still big enough for it to reach the top 50?

When Semprini was playing in the 1950s, was the statistical "bulge" of the classical audience buying his recordings or Horovitz, Arrau, Richter &c.

[cloughie]

The difference between Mario Lanza and all the crossover rock / light classical pianists you mention (from Elton through to Semprini ) is that Lanza had the voice to be a first rate operatic tenor - by first rate I mean one of the greats - up there with Pavarotti and Domingo. Elton John is a great songwriter and superb rock pianist but he could never have been Vladimir Horowitz- nor would we wish him to be.
Other very good crossover classical pianists / composers :Neil Sedaka and Nina Simone and our very own Peter Skellern

I agree about those Skellern was very inventive with his brass band fusion. I would add Roberta Flack to that list. Like Nina Simone was classically trained but racial segregation got in the way of her progress.
Billy Joel, though not classically trained wrote some classical piano pieces though interestingly chose to employ a classical pianist to record them.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I suppose the question might be "What are the two stools here?" - the music played or the audience which appreciates it? Back in the days of Semprini et al there was no "pop" music: there was music that was very popular but it wasn't the kind of music (or performer) that the under 25s would switch on the radio especially to hear. In the case of Lang Lang (and, again, his musical talent is not in dispute) what is the audience which has propelled no fewer than four of his albums into the current "Official" classical chart (not to be confused with the Gramophone classical chart). Vikingur Olafsson has one, Pascal Rogé has one, Benjamin Grosvenor one and Barenboim has one - and one can imagine large enough variable chunks of the 'classical audience buying one of these to qualify it for the charts; but does that audience contain so many devoted fans of Lang Lang that they buy every single album of his? Or is that audience so big that they don't need to buy every album but just buy one or two but the audience for all four separate albums is still big enough for it to reach the top 50?

When Semprini was playing in the 1950s, was the statistical "bulge" of the classical audience buying his recordings or Horovitz, Arrau, Richter &c.

I don’t know which of the many classical charts you mean but if Lang Lang has four albums in it currently it’s probably because of the publicity he got from the recent C4 piano series which was very highly rated by those that watched it - an amazing popular success really . He is very effectively marketed and appears on TV all the time. Went past UMP’s new HQ in Kings Cross the other day - the size of the place is extraordinary . United Music Publishers seem to own everything . You don’t have to sell many albums to get in the classical top 10 .