[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Claude Debussy — Jardins sous la pluie
Album: Debussy: Piano Works (Pascal Rogé)
Avg rating:
7.6

Your rating:
Total ratings: 1700









Released: 1903
Length: 3:18
Plays (last 30 days): 0
(Instrumental)
Comments (187)add comment
More please. 
Nous n'irons plus au bois
Les lauriers sont coupés
this is kind of trippy

leave it to the french

sacre bleau
Nous n'irons plus au bois, les lauriers sont coupés
La belle que voilà ira les ramasser
Claude Debussy Jones.
 Edweirdo wrote:

Actually "Too many notes" was the judgment of Emperor Joseph II.



That was in reference to Mozart's works, not Salieri's.
 mread wrote:

You go, Salieri!

Actually "Too many notes" was the judgment of Emperor Joseph II.
 whaleboneman wrote:


Or some ABBA?


Or some more Milli Vanilli! (there is not enough Milli Vanilli on RP)
 Ahnyer_Keester wrote:

A great follow up to this would be something from The Art of Noise's Seduction of Claude Debuessy!!



Or some ABBA?
 VH1 wrote:

Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.





The above text was stated by a narrator on a very interesting CD that was released in 1999 by The Art of Noise called "The Seduction of Debussy".  The interpretations by the band crossed at least four different genres of music.
Methinks RP's got a French thing going  on. 
bobheisler wrote:

Actually, that Art of Noise CD, which came out in 1999, is a very interesting multi-genre tribute to Debussy

 

 ray_killeen wrote:


I don't believe in beliefs and I'm a dog person.
 
There is no Dog. 
 VH1 wrote:
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.


 

I don't believe in beliefs and I'm a dog person.
Not much of a Debussy fan but I’ll give it a 7 because of Pascal Roge
If you ever want some quality reading on the background and impact of Debussy, this is a great piece:

https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
 VH1 wrote:
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.


 

Oh, Art of Noise...
Many people have mentioned Tomita's "Snowflakes are Dancing", an album that blew me away in the 70's and one I still enjoy  today. But I often wonder, what would ole Claude think of it?  I like to think he'd be blown away, as well (assuming his cats approved first, of course)....
 miahfost wrote:
Too many notes.
 
You go, Salieri!
 folkrocker wrote:
FWIW, check out Iso Tomita's rendition of Debussy's impressionist "tonal paintings" on his album "Snowflakes are Dancing". I wrote a thesis on Debussy as a pioneer of modern New Age music.
 
Could you share your thesis?
Fascinating that this follows Tori Amos ("Cruel"). Amos was nearly 101 years to the day after Debussy and was also admitted at a very young to one of the top musical institutions. Sweet segue and synchronicity! 
Debussy... Satie... I love it when Bill throws this sort of thing into the mix. Just as lovely as it was a century ago.
 folkrocker wrote:
FWIW, check out Iso Tomita's rendition of Debussy's impressionist "tonal paintings" on his album "Snowflakes are Dancing". I wrote a thesis on Debussy as a pioneer of modern New Age music.

 
Debussy‘s work is simply beautiful. I also love the way how Isao Tomita adds an extra dimension to it, through the detailed creation of the sound of each note.
Wow, from Fink's Pilgrim to this, –keep the tension on!
 VH1 wrote:
(...)

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always  regarded by some people as a personal attack. 

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

(...)
 
"Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always regarded by some people as a personal attack."

Huh, there is ample evidence of that on these comments boards!

"... He preferred cats to people."

I get that. I totally get that. And I'm no musical genius, believe me.
marvellous..... 
 ambrebalte wrote:

{#Lol} so very Joseph II of you

 
now THAT"S funny
FWIW, check out Iso Tomita's rendition of Debussy's impressionist "tonal paintings" on his album "Snowflakes are Dancing". I wrote a thesis on Debussy as a pioneer of modern New Age music.
 paleozogt wrote:

Nice quote from Art of Noise's "The Holy Egoism of Genius".  RP used to play that back in the day.

 
Yes, with the narration by John Hurt.

Bit of a showoff, in't he? {#Cheesygrin}
 VH1 wrote:

Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.



 
Nice quote from Art of Noise's "The Holy Egoism of Genius".  RP used to play that back in the day.
 VH1 wrote:

Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.



 
Wow. That is ...profoundly beautiful, and somewhat difficult. Like Debussy.
 VH1 wrote:

Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.



 
I think if you could put this to a rap, like that Vietnam, S-S-Saigon, song, or the song falsely attributed to Kurt Vonnegut, it would be kind-of cool in a campy sort-of way.

Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.

Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.

He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.

No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.


 miahfost wrote:
Too many notes.

 
notes
 planet_lizard wrote:

The latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.

 
True dat. Lizards rule.
Oh wow!
 miahfost wrote:
Too many notes.

 
{#Lol} so very Joseph II of you
 planet_lizard wrote:

The latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.

 
Bloomin marvellous :) Exactly
 MiMa wrote:
Sorry, where is the melody?{#Ask} 
Maybe I just don´t get it... 

 
The latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.
Sorry, where is the melody?{#Ask} 
Maybe I just don´t get it... 
Good lord - of all the dreamy and melodic Debussy to be had...why THIS nerve-wracking one?
 Kokoloco53 wrote:

But it's all good! Asi es la vida, that's the way of the world. Peace, love and harmony, that's my goal.

 
{#Sunny}

As a former music major, I'll give my opinion about what DaveDog writes. Rock - popular compositions are performed and covered by so many artists who generally perform the same song to their own liking, style and often major changes to tempo, verse, keys, and length. Though classical composers, even Mozart and Bach wrote their songs down on manuscripts, they themselves often modified them when they themselves performed for audiences. Over the centuries though, we as performers buy a manuscript and attempt to perform the composition exactly as Mozart or whoever composed it originally, note for note, not changing anything intentionally. So when performers cover classical compositions, they are giving an enormous amount of credit to the composer, following his intentions. That said, classical music fans do have their favorite modern day musicians, Cliburn, Rubenstein, Horowitz, etc. that each tweaked the same compositions to their own liking, but with minimal change to the music. The saddest thing for me with some of the world's greatest modern popular songs ever written is that the composers often get little or no recognition for their hard work. Instead the 'rock star' gets all of the credit, both financially and publicly. But it's all good! Asi es la vida, that's the way of the world. Peace, love and harmony, that's my goal.

davedog wrote:

So why is it that with classical music we say it's a song by the composer (this is a Debussy song for instance) where other genres refer to the artist?  The pianist here is obviously a wonderful player, but they get no credit other than a name on the album cover.  Just an observation.  


 


 miahfost wrote:
Too many notes.

 
Right, talk about noodling.
Pascal Rogé
Pianist
Pascal Rogé is a French pianist. His playing includes the works of compatriot composers Saint-Saëns, Fauré, Debussy, Ravel, Satie, and Poulenc, among others. Wikipedia
Born: April 6, 1951 (age 63), Paris, France

 miahfost wrote:
Too many notes.

 

Too many notes.

I also listen to another station where the player is given equal credits when the performance warrants it and at least a solid mention when it's merely pedestrian. OTOH, convention calls for the composer to get max cred in classical, although this is changing when composers merely rearranged old, or folk songs/dances/melodies, which are now being  listed as 'arrangements of', rather than "composed by".

IMHO, as RDO would say.


 ch83575 wrote:

Could it perhaps be more akin to technological advancement than a lifting of conventions?  In the beginning there were forms and styles that developed through the generations that composers knew made good sounding music, so they wrote within those forms.  Then, as that grew dull an imaginative person -- say a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, etc. -- would come along and introduce something new that pushed the boundaries of the form but also sounded good.  The next generation could operate within a wider range of conventions and push the boundaries again.  The trick here is that I like to imagine that Bach would enjoy Shostakovich -- at least Beethoven, Shostakovich might be too unfamiliar to sound good at all -- but he simply couldn't imagine it from his position in time.

This is just like technological advancement.  Would Watt have preferred to invent a V8 Hemi instead of a steam engine?  Sure, but from his spot in time he simply couldn't imagine it.  The physical principals are exactly the same between the two, but that doesn't mean that Watt could a V8.  The people who's names we remember are those who opened the conventions and took steps forward.  In science this would be Newton, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein and many others.  In music it might be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz.  But these are just the big steps, everybody involved is trying to make what progress they can.  In this way, I contend, music and science take the same evolutionary trajectory, and that is why we prefer more modern composers for the most part.  And when we reach back in time, we make sure that we select the people who made major advancements, not just practitioners.

The only problem with my hypothesis is that I have no idea where Justin Bieber fits in... oh well.

 
Nicely, elegantly put.
 davedog wrote:
So why is it that with classical music we say it's a song by the composer (this is a Debussy song for instance) where other genres refer to the artist?  The pianist here is obviously a wonderful player, but they get no credit other than a name on the album cover.  Just an observation.  

 
RP is correct, the composer gets top billing...as per custom and as it should be IMHO.
 velocette wrote:

Uh, because maybe this is a mediocre interpretation? Of a composition that's not first rate?

 
Hmm. I'm no expert, but I thought this was pretty good on both counts. What makes you think it's a poor performance?
 davedog wrote:
So why is it that with classical music we say it's a song by the composer (this is a Debussy song for instance) where other genres refer to the artist?  The pianist here is obviously a wonderful player, but they get no credit other than a name on the album cover.  Just an observation.  

 
Uh, because maybe this is a mediocre interpretation? Of a composition that's not first rate?
 alicexisi wrote:
ПбПжаю ваше раЎОП!

 
Я сПгласеМ. НаОбПлее ПтлОчМая Ќузыка!
So why is it that with classical music we say it's a song by the composer (this is a Debussy song for instance) where other genres refer to the artist?  The pianist here is obviously a wonderful player, but they get no credit other than a name on the album cover.  Just an observation.  
ПбПжаю ваше раЎОП!
 Proclivities wrote:

That's a natural progression, perhaps with The Hindenburg Disaster coming after Impressionism.

 
Ohwellgee of course...(wottdeefock?...).
 phlattop wrote:

or vice versa.  I believe Debussy preceded Rachmaninoff.

 
You are partially right, sir!  Debussy was indeed older than Rachmaninoff. However, Rachmaninoff wrote his second in 1900-01. Debussy wrote this piece in 1903. 

Thank you for sparking my curiosity. I appreciate it.  

Best wishes. 
 Grammarcop wrote:
I hear strains of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto.

 
or vice versa.  I believe Debussy preceded Rachmaninoff.
 Cynaera wrote:
This is almost a polar-opposite composition from "Claire de Lune" - just shows how versatile Debussy was... Such beautiful music...
 

miss you so much, Cynaera...

love this music...
 
Brilliant to hear this here. Thank you, RP!
 fredriley wrote:

Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.

19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.



 
Could it perhaps be more akin to technological advancement than a lifting of conventions?  In the beginning there were forms and styles that developed through the generations that composers knew made good sounding music, so they wrote within those forms.  Then, as that grew dull an imaginative person -- say a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, etc. -- would come along and introduce something new that pushed the boundaries of the form but also sounded good.  The next generation could operate within a wider range of conventions and push the boundaries again.  The trick here is that I like to imagine that Bach would enjoy Shostakovich -- at least Beethoven, Shostakovich might be too unfamiliar to sound good at all -- but he simply couldn't imagine it from his position in time.

This is just like technological advancement.  Would Watt have preferred to invent a V8 Hemi instead of a steam engine?  Sure, but from his spot in time he simply couldn't imagine it.  The physical principals are exactly the same between the two, but that doesn't mean that Watt could a V8.  The people who's names we remember are those who opened the conventions and took steps forward.  In science this would be Newton, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein and many others.  In music it might be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz.  But these are just the big steps, everybody involved is trying to make what progress they can.  In this way, I contend, music and science take the same evolutionary trajectory, and that is why we prefer more modern composers for the most part.  And when we reach back in time, we make sure that we select the people who made major advancements, not just practitioners.

The only problem with my hypothesis is that I have no idea where Justin Bieber fits in... oh well.
don't know why,but, this kinda makes me reach for 7 Horse..low fuel drug run
I hear strains of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto.
You know, I just don't get Debussy.  No reapeting motifs, blatant disregard for accepted forms ... kind of like just a bunch of plinking piano notes with crescendos and et cetera.

Give me some serious Russian/Austrian power with a full orchestra, though, and I be dancin'.
 kcar wrote:


How did we get from Debussy and Impressionism to "Deliverance"? 
 
That's a natural progression, perhaps with The Hindenburg Disaster coming after Impressionism.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 fredriley wrote:

Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalization. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovitch, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.

19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.

 
Once again, fredriley pretty much nails it. You forgot Dadaism, though.

fyt
 Ahnyer_Keester wrote:
This station takes the term "eclectic" seriously! And thank you for doing it.
 
Hear hear! {#Good-vibes}
Pluie!  Pluie! Pluie!

https://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_04_img0223.jpg?dur=441

 

GENIUS!


 bindi wrote:
OK, somebody with some musical knowledge - explain to me why I would naturally like Debussy way more than Bach, Beethoven, etc. Something about it seems more alive and interesting.
 
Just a WAG, but maybe for the same reason you prefer Monet paintings over Botticelli, Caravaggio, van Eyck, Bruegel, and so on. Monet's are more alive and interesting to modern tastes.
 fredriley wrote:

Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.

19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say

 
It sure is easy to tell (well, usually) when music by a Russian composer is being played!

And for the record, Mozart did play too many notes! His music reminds me of certain electric guitarists who think it's all about how many notes they can play as quickly as possible, without paying any attention to tone and melody.

 
This station takes the term "eclectic" seriously! And thank you for doing it.
 sirdroseph wrote:


You speak purdy, I bet youen gota purdy mouth, boy!
 

How did we get from Debussy and Impressionism to "Deliverance"? 
 bindi wrote:
OK, somebody with some musical knowledge - explain to me why I would naturally like Debussy way more than Bach, Beethoven, etc. Something about it seems more alive and interesting.

 
Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.

19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.


 bindi wrote:
OK, somebody with some musical knowledge - explain to me why I would naturally like Debussy way more than Bach, Beethoven, etc. Something about it seems more alive and interesting.
 
Probably because it is more recent - this is c. 100yrs old and Bach and Beethoven both >200 yrs old and therefore it sounds perhaps slightly less conventional and music had come a long way in that short space of time.

OK, somebody with some musical knowledge - explain to me why I would naturally like Debussy way more than Bach, Beethoven, etc. Something about it seems more alive and interesting.
Nice, but going through the Gabriel to get here wasn't.
 Deadwing wrote:
Learn to discern.
 
Perhaps you should take your own advice. Not all classical music needs to be largo to be beautiful. The piece is "Gardens in the Rain". I think this piece it quite evocative of that image. One could argue that, programmatically, it's a bit literal, but to dismiss as "pointless" points to the lack of a critical ear.
 Deadwing wrote:
Claire de Lune is a gorgeous, lush, moving composition.

This is pointless self gloryifying piano diddling.

Learn to discern.
 

You speak purdy, I bet youen gota purdy mouth, boy!
Did you know that Debussy's music was panned when it first came out? It was so radical when it was first heard that many thought it to be unlistenable.
Awesome!
Claire de Lune is a gorgeous, lush, moving composition.

This is pointless self gloryifying piano diddling.

Learn to discern.
Debussy writes beautiful harp music.
A great follow up to this would be something from The Art of Noise's Seduction of Claude Debuessy!!
This is almost a polar-opposite composition from "Claire de Lune" - just shows how versatile Debussy was... Such beautiful music...
Hm.  Seems like the dude is trying to "expand" our musical horizons.  First Vivaldi, now Debussy.  I haven't owned a keyboard since I left my parents' house.  Debussy was a favorite of my instructor when I was in college.  Ah, memories...

All-time Favorite Composer: Claude Debussy
All-time Favorite Painter: Claude Monet
All-time Favorite DJ: Bill Goldsmith (and his faithful sidekick, Rebecca)

 Zeito wrote:
Sounds pretty good for a 107 year old recording. 
 
I believe the wax cylinders were remastered a few years back

Very evocative of the title. Now where's my umbrella...?
Hey, this Debussy guy is pretty good. If he sticks with it he could really make a name for himself.

What?
Sounds pretty good for a 107 year old recording. 
I love Debussy - Claire de Lune is one of the finest pieces of classical music I've ever heard. {#Sunny}
Wow.
I, for one, would not object to a smidge more classical music on occasion.  Adds to the fabric.  {#War}
...and back then  jagdriver wrote:
Very nice to hear this right now!
 


I'd love to hear more Debussy here — orchestra, electronic variants, Renaissance adaptations, etc.
Very nice to hear this right now!
 CarpePotus wrote:

The painting is by Claude Monet.  He and Debussy were both French impressionists... Monet an artist and Debussy a musician.  Both lived in France from the late 1800's to the early 1900's.

 
great answer!

Debussy!
On the whole, I'm not big on classical, but Debussy was just fantastic.
I love the little splash of classical music!
 rtb wrote:
Why is there a picture of a boat on a Debussy album?
 
The painting is by Claude Monet.  He and Debussy were both French impressionists... Monet an artist and Debussy a musician.  Both lived in France from the late 1800's to the early 1900's.

 Pyro wrote:
Thank you, BillG.  The diversity just keeps me listening, year after year.
 
Couldn't agree more.  Arvo Pärt's Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten (played yesterday... thanks Bill {#Wink}) is another great example.


MORE!........maybe some chamber music from the superb Italians, eh?
Why is there a picture of a boat on a Debussy album?
I have a young friend who is just dipping her toes into classical music. I wonder if she's listening now? This is beautifully sublime. Or is it sublimely beautiful? Never could keep that straight...
Thank you, BillG.  The diversity just keeps me listening, year after year.
 nigelr wrote:
Wonderful to see the classical genre represented on RP.
 
  Very nice. And Debussy is one of my favorite composers.

Wonderful to see the classical genre represented on RP.
 AvoidingWork wrote:

My father was a dentist.  I got to listen to this stuff all the time.  Still like it. {#Cheesygrin}
  I always wonder why they do that,,,,,,,hmmm calming influence.


 Kaisersosay wrote:
hey I'm in a dentist office
 
My father was a dentist.  I got to listen to this stuff all the time.  Still like it. {#Cheesygrin}
 federico wrote:

image if Bill had played a mediaevial madrigal ...

 

Now thats music !
 jadewahoo wrote:
I am so glad someone... even many someones... enjoy this classical music that BillG plays here. Yeah. It keeps it eclectic. Frankly, it drives me up the fuckin' wall, makes me want to take a BB gun and go shoot helpless little birds or the neighborhood dogs. Yep, it is the musical equivalent, for me, to a toothache. Knowing that this is how I feel about it, I won't rate it, not even 1, which would be way too high a rating in my estimation, as there are those who do truly like this stuff. Since I cannot judge it on its merit, I will simply refrain, other than this release of pain expressed herein.

 
image if Bill had played a mediaevial madrigal ...

Is this Billy Joel?
hey I'm in a dentist office
Bravo Bill! ;)