The sweetest piano piece

[rk910522]

What's the sweetest piano piece you ever heard or played

[nanabush]

Pavane pour une Infante Defunte, Iunno why but it seems "sweet"

[stevie]

chopin raindrop prelude...

[stormx]

Schumann's "Traumerei" comes to my mind 

[zheer]

Debussy, Childrens Corner , Golliwogg's Cake-walk.

[Kassaa]

Liszt Totentanz, Alkan concerto first movement.

[donjuan]

Liszt Totentanz, Alkan concerto first movement.

hahahahahahaha.... cant agree with that! mmmm nothing is quite as sweet-sounding as "dance of death" now is it?

If you want sweet Liszt, check out 'Andante Lagrimoso'.

I vote for Schumann - "On the Wings of Song"

[rk910522]

There are so many including Chopin's nocturne 32 1,liebestraume

[rk910522]

Danse macabre sounds wicked kinda like a halloween dance song

[gorbee natcase]

chopin raindrop prelude...yep

There are so many including Chopin's nocturne 32 1,liebestraume

Only 1 nocturne, A few more deserve credit

[rk910522]

i forgot noc 32 2.

[etudes]

Liebestraum from Liszt and Widmung (transcription after Schumann)
Chopin all the ballade mostly of nocturne and 2nd movement from both concerto Berceuse(spelling)
Beethoven op.2 no.3 and op.57 2nd movement
Brahms op.117,no.118 no.2

[kreso]

Brahms-Intermezzo op.118/2, op.117/1
Chopin-Berceuse, Nocturno op.27/2, op.posth c-sharp minor, Etude op.10/3
Liszt-Libestraume no.3, Widmung (Schumann)
Mendhelsohn-Songs without words (some of them)
Schumann-op.12/1, Arabesque op.18, Traumeri from op.15
Rachmaninov-Prelude op.32/5
Moszkowski-Sparks

and

Beethoven- Fur Elize

[stevie]

oh yeah, the romance from brahms op118 too, breathtakingly beautiful

[I Love Xenakis]

Wagner-Liszt Isolda's Liebestod

[JCarey]

Liszt Totentanz, Alkan concerto first movement.

I would also nominate Flynn's Trinity, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, and anything by Ornstein.

[ahinton]

I would also nominate Flynn's Trinity, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, and anything by Ornstein.

Frankly, I'm amazed that it's taken this long for someone to nominate OC here! Anyway, how's about Xenakis's Eonta?...

Best,

Alistair

[donjuan]

Wagner-Liszt Isolda's Liebestod

ahhhh EXCELLENT choice

[steveie986]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I dislike almost everything posted here. The Romantics conjure up flinch-inducing memories of my pre-adolescent penchant for the mush of Chopin. The maximum amount of Romantic music I can endure ends with Beethoven's Hammerklavier.

I must vote for Glenn Gould's second interpretation of the Goldberg, or Prokofiev's piano sonatas 6 and 8.

[I Love Xenakis]

I would also nominate Flynn's Trinity, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, and anything by Ornstein.

Cmon.  That's weak.  Barrett Tracts > Trinity, I don't give a *** about Sorabji besides the Sonata No. 1 and the Solo Concerto so I don't know, Penderecki Cello Concerto > Threnody and Ornstein did write a couple really pretty and sweet pieces like "A Morning in the Woods".

Frankly, I'm amazed that it's taken this long for someone to nominate OC here! Anyway, how's about Xenakis's Eonta?...

Best,

Alistair

Eonta is chopsticks compared to Synaphai, Pithroprakta, Erikhthon, Keqrops, and Persepolis[GRM Remix]


You fail alistair.  You fail at life.  You don't even get your name capitalized.





If we're looking for the most non-sweet piece ever written, it is UNARGUABLY the Ferneyhough Etudes Transcendentales.  No Contest.

[steveie986]

On the topic of the OC, I don't know too much about it and don't want to. From what I've read and bits I've heard, it just seems to be bombastic deconstructionist drivel. The OC is to music what Derrida is to philosophy: it may be unfathomably deep, but quite frankly, I can't give a damn about something that's 5 hours long that's not Lord of the Rings.

[panic]

The OC is to music what Derrida is to philosophy: it may be unfathomably deep, but quite frankly, I can't give a *** about something that's 5 hours long that's not Lord of the Rings.

grrr...I was going to say you should listen to Mahler but you don't like Romantic. Therefore, watch Lawrence of Arabia.

p.s. I love xenakis, is it Tract that is supposed to be THE hardest piece ever written? If so, what is Trinity?

[Kassaa]

I posted in the wrong topic , I thought I was in the climaxes topic. Anyway, the beginning of the fourth Chopin Ballade obviously.

[ahinton]

Eonta is chopsticks compared to Synaphai, Pithroprakta, Erikhthon, Keqrops, and Persepolis[GRM Remix]

I am not suggesting otherwise; the point here, however, is that what I wrote was intended to be taken less than seriously - a fact that I would have thought obvious to most people reading here. Since you mention several other Xenakis works, however, let us not forget that the composer was not especially concerned that his performers always and only ever play precisely the notes he wrote in precisely the way in which he wrote them; this is surely a significant consideration in discussion of "the hardest piece" phenomenon, for it demonstrates that satisfying Xenakis with a performance of one of his works might seem to be somewhat different to satisfying another composer of a "difficult" piece where it is essential to aim to play exactly what is written.

You fail alistair.  You fail at life.

What is that supposed to mean? - or rather what is the connection between what I wrote and what you write here? It is less than obvious what my "life" - of which you know and need to know little - may have to do with threads such as this...

Barrett's "Tract" is indeed difficult - but then so is Finnissy's Concerto No. 4 and all sorts of other things. There have been several threads of the "hardest piano piece" type on this forum of late (and yes, I am aware that this thread is not one of them but the subjet has nevertheless been dragged into it), but despite the best efforts of certain contributors to persuade readers that such "difficulty" is not a finite, hard-and-fast concept, that one person's difficulty is another person's relative ease and that, by definition, a 4½-hour "difficult" piece is harder than a 4½-minute one posing the same level of technical challenge, people will still persist in running it again. The only people who might have genuine insights into this question are pianists such as Jonathan Powell who happen to have performed a number of the contenders for the "most difficult" title; whilst I have no wish to waste his valuable time in inviting his views here, it may be worth mentioning that he has never, in my hearing, wittered on about how "difficult" it is to play OC, or the same composer's Fourth Sonata, or the Finnnissy work I mentioned, or Finnissy's English Country-Tunes or complete (5 volumes) Verdi transcriptions or Dillon's complete Book of Elements or indeed anything else except Sorabji's Concerto per suonare da me solo - and in this instance he didn't witter on about it but just mentioned it once. If there is a valid point to be made about this at all, it may be that, when confronted by such works in Mr Powell's hands, most listeners' perceptions of "difficulty" soon dissipate and dissolve, leaving only the music to speak for itself - which is, of course, just as it should be.

Best,

Alistair

[I Love Xenakis]

grrr...I was going to say you should listen to Mahler but you don't like Romantic. Therefore, watch Lawrence of Arabia.

p.s. I love xenakis, is it Tract that is supposed to be THE hardest piece ever written? If so, what is Trinity?

Ian Pace's Opinion on the Matter (who is certainly more of a source than Powell):
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Finnissy English Country-Tunes
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis Synaphai (Piano Concerto)
Xenakis Eonta
Barrett Tract
Zimmermann Wusterwanderung
Barlow Cogluotobusisletmesi (not even Pace himself plays this)
Globokar Notes (Pace finds this piece scary)
Hoban "When the Panting STARTS"


He lists those as the "transcendentally difficult" pieces in a correspondence I had with him, putting the Barlow and Barrett at the top of the most difficult "conceiveably playable" pieces, saying that Xenakis Evryali, Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4 and especially the Xenakis Synaphai are so insanely difficult it becomes a philosophical question as to whether or not they can even be "played."



If you were to ask me what the most difficult piece is I'd tell you the Fox "Brutal" Sonata, a piece I've only recently come in contact with.  Before that I would have said Xenakis Synaphai and Evryali, Barrett Tract and Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 6 as opposed to No. 4.




Alistair, I don't know what you mean by saying Xenakis "was not especially concerned that his performers always and only ever play precisely the notes he wrote".  I mean I know what you're saying; this is my way of pointing out that your little comment is BS. 


And please?  The Dillon?  If we're dealing with the New Complexity Ferneyhough is obviously the bad boy.


"I am not suggesting otherwise; the point here, however, is that what I wrote was intended to be taken less than seriously"

This is the point you're making when you say sarcastically that Eonta is a sweet piece?  This is rather solipsist- cmon cutie, you really think you're the only one that can be painfully pedantic?  You don't say something to have the point be that your comment is not intended to be taken seriously; you make a comment that has a point and you may or may not intend for it to be taken seriously.  Then you go off on some HUGE tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  I stopped reading it once I saw your comment about how Xenakis feels his works should be performed; since that's BS I assumed the rest was and didn't feel like wasting my time with it ^^



Now what's this about the Verdi Transcriptions?  This is certainly not a contender for the most difficult piece; neither is your "anonymous" 4.5 hour piece AKA Opus Clavicembalisticum.

Also, always take what I say to be taken less than seriously sweetheart.



PS- do you have a bigboy crush on either Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and/or Jonathan Powell, and if so is it reciprocated?

[pita bread]

You know Hinton, I don't really understand what your fascination with the Opus Clavicembalisticum is.  I'm currently finishing up the Opus Aaurorasunum, which is unarguably a superior and much more difficult piece.  It also has a more interesting backround.  The four movements were dedicated to John Cage, Paul Hindemith, the young Philip Glass and Van Cliburn respectively, and it's also the only piece he ever wrote to utilise the Viennese school Twelve-Tone Matrix.  He wrote it during his brief stay in new York City and wrote about it in his famous diary while touring with Feruccio Busoni who was the person to premiere it.  It's longer and harder more uncut than the OC and has more musical bravura.

Sorabji himself said: "In reference to this large-scale work that has perplexed me as I have written it, I have found new ways of expressing myself that my silly, archaic methods do not stand in light of.  It is a great unfortune to myself that I must quickly leave this great city of lights that is New York, as such musical architecture would be frowned upon where I am from, yet I must consider this only a respite from my incapabilities of defined freedom."  George Perle said of this work, "This work predicts a harmonic language years ahead of its time."


I can't wait to finish it.

[ryguillian]

Wow, I never realized Sorabji was such a diverse composer! I knew he traversed a lot of styles, but I never knew that he explored different methods of composition such as the twelve-tone technique. Also, judging from this dedication he may have also dabbled with minimalism (is this piece minimalistic in some respects, pita?) Sorabji traveling around with Busoni?  Two of the greatest pianists of the 20th century traveling around with one another. I can just imagine the cadenzas those concerts must've seen Sorabjian Busonian ... ah... it's incredible to think about. (I wonder if this is where they exchanged ideas about form... such as the OC). It's amazing that people are taking the challenge and learning and performing works of Sorabji that would otherwise never be heard. No longer will we be limited merely to Powell's interpretations of these works.

—Ryan

[pita bread]

(is this piece minimalistic in some respects, pita?)

It begins almost as a minimalist piece, but in Ligetian fashion, it erupts into demonic fury.

[I Love Xenakis]

I've heard about this composition before!  Ian Pace said that it was the only work of Sorabji that he liked and that at some point he planned on tackling it.  Looks like you'll beat him to the punch ^^  The sheets for that thing are insane- Pace showed me a couple.  I have no idea how you could play some of those passages, particularly the ones with the 32nd chords placed all over the piano with constant hand position adjustment with trill ornamentation!  It's just a marvel to even think of it!

[ahinton]

Ian Pace's Opinion on the Matter (who is certainly more of a source than Powell):
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Finnissy English Country-Tunes
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis Synaphai (Piano Concerto)
Xenakis Eonta
Barrett Tract
Zimmermann Wusterwanderung
Barlow Cogluotobusisletmesi (not even Pace himself plays this)
Globokar Notes (Pace finds this piece scary)
Hoban "When the Panting STARTS"

Says who? Says Ian Pace, presumably. He is well entitled to his view, since he is familiar with all of the works you cite him above as having listed. I am not about to argue with it, either; I am also not, however, about to elevate the subject of such difficulty above the point at which is has any real existence. Mr Pace's authority on the subject notwithstanding, quite why what he has evidently written to you makes him - even if only in your own eyes - "certainly more of a source than Powell" remains unclear, however.

He lists those as the "transcendentally difficult" pieces in a correspondence I had with him, putting the Barlow and Barrett at the top of the most difficult "conceiveably playable" pieces, saying that Xenakis Evryali, Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4 and especially the Xenakis Synaphai are so insanely difficult it becomes a philosophical question as to whether or not they can even be "played."

He may well have a point, although it will inevitably be a personal point and it does not especially strike me that Mr Pace intends, by so saying, to be dogmatic about this - rather than that this is his current view formed through his practical experiences of the pieces concerned.

If you were to ask me what the most difficult piece is I'd tell you the Fox "Brutal" Sonata, a piece I've only recently come in contact with.  Before that I would have said Xenakis Synaphai and Evryali, Barrett Tract and Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 6 as opposed to No. 4.

I didn't ask you, I don't happen to know the Fox work anyway so could not even pass comment and, in any case, your list, like Mr Pace's, tells us what you personally think on the subject - which is absolutely fine, provided that it is not intended to be taken as gospel and that every reader should accordingly agree with you Mr Pace cites Finnissy's 4th concerto - you go for No. 6 - so be it in both cases...

Alistair, I don't know what you mean by saying Xenakis "was not especially concerned that his performers always and only ever play precisely the notes he wrote".  I mean I know what you're saying; this is my way of pointing out that your little comment is BS.

My comment here is based upon the experience of at least two performers who worked with Xenakis. In a more general context, Xenakis's reaction here coincidentally points up the question of reasonable tolerance factors in regard to textual accuracy, in terms both of audience expectation following the establishment of performing traditions and of individual aural perceptions; it is self-evident that 100% accurate replication in performance of the composer's precise notational instructions (assuming them to be precisely expressed - which, in most of the above cases, they are) will vary from one pair of ears to another and from one piece to another, so it is not surprising that the realistic expectation of the composer may likewise vary to some extent from one composer to another.

And please?  The Dillon?  If we're dealing with the New Complexity Ferneyhough is obviously the bad boy.

You misunderstand what I wrote if you assume from it that I am personally claiming it - or indeed anthing else - to be one of the contenders here; my intention was to point out what others have claimed.

"I am not suggesting otherwise; the point here, however, is that what I wrote was intended to be taken less than seriously"

This is the point you're making when you say sarcastically that Eonta is a sweet piece?

I didn't and don't say that it is or is not anything of the sort, for, as I pointed out before, what I wrote was merely intended to be taken less than seriously rather than as the sarcasm which you have sought to find in it. For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I think Eonta is a wonderful piece - one of its composer's most approachable, too, like the equally fine Tetras.

Then you go off on some HUGE tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  I stopped reading it once I saw your comment about how Xenakis feels his works should be performed; since that's BS I assumed the rest was and didn't feel like wasting my time with it ^^

If you stopped reading it, how do you know that it was either a "HUGE tangent" or "has nothing to do with anything" (whatever that may or may not mean)? The question is necessarily rhetorical, by the way, so please don't waste any energy in trying to answer it...

Now what's this about the Verdi Transcriptions?  This is certainly not a contender for the most difficult piece; neither is your "anonymous" 4.5 hour piece AKA Opus Clavicembalisticum.

See above; I have personally made no claims about what may or may not qualify as a contender in this "most difficult" business - I have instead merely replicated the thoughts of others which, as I have already observed, will inevitably vary from person to person in any case.

Also, always take what I say to be taken less than seriously sweetheart.

Thank you for your kind and timely advice, which is surely most especially apposite in the case of your final word here; I shall bear it in mind.

PS- do you have a bigboy crush on either Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and/or Jonathan Powell, and if so is it reciprocated?

Is that the same as a Bobby Crush? I supppose that your remark here is intended to be funny - or at least not to be taken too seriously - but I regret (or do I?) that its humorous content, if any, escapes me, especially given that Sorabji, having been been dead for a little over 17 years, would almost certainly find it "difficult" to "reciprocate" anything...

Perhaps it's high time to return this thread to its original topic.

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

ahhhh EXCELLENT choice

i disagree, that piece is pretty, beautiful, but not sweet.

the piece is about dying after randomly ejaculating!

you expect sugar-coated semen?

[I Love Xenakis]

So snuggums, when you say that when you list pieces as being particularly difficult, you do not have any actual experience in such works and can only mimic what other nameless sources have told you are difficult?  Might I inquire as to who any of these sources may be beyond Jonathan Powell, and what makes you insinuate, but not actually outright say, because you never say anything outright or even coherently, that your precious Sorabji virtuoso is a better reference on the subject of what is and isn't difficult?  You yourself cite that Pace has experience with each and overy one of these pieces.  Not only that, but he also gave the premieres of about half of them, so I believe that that does make Pace an authority over Powell when it comes to this.  Also, might I ask you what sort of personal experience you have in the subject matter?  Because if you say none I hope you'll be able to understand that I would have to take any of your blind claims with a grain of salt.  And please do not make the assumption that I also have no experience in these types of works, as such an assumption would be incorrect, as convenient as it would be for you.

Now concerning your completely wrong statement about Xenakis.  May I ask if one of the people you refer to knowing personally is a Mr. Hill?  Because he is sort of the leader of this whole idea of skipping notes and not worrying about perfection in Xenakis' works.  He is also considered a pathetic joke among pianists who perform Xenakis, as are any of the other pianists who agree with him.  Xenakis PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED every pianist that came to him to perform every single note or to simply not play the piece at all.  If you did your homework and read the Harmonoligia Series he published, you could have avoided making yourself looking like an idiot ^^  I quote from Xenakis directly:

"Chance. . .can be constructed up to a point and with great difficulty, by means of complex reasoning which is summarized in mathematical formulae; it can be constructed a little, but never improvised or intellectually imitated."

I hope this shows you how wrong you are.  But what do I know, I'm not the all-powerful Curator / Director of the Sorabji Archive, I just check facts and make sure I actually know what I'm talking about.  Please, tell me what musicians you are referring to when they say that it is ok to cut notes in Xenakis compositions.  I'd like to know ^^


And as a topic of curiosity, I wanted to know if you were aware of the fact that nobody in the world speaks like you, and that half of the things you say nobody would be able to understand.  Maybe that's why everyone dislikes you?

"I am not about to argue with it, either; I am also not, however, about to elevate the subject of such difficulty above the point at which is has any real existence."

"I didn't and don't say that it is or is not anything of the sort, for, as I pointed out before, what I wrote was merely intended to be taken less than seriously rather than as the sarcasm which you have sought to find in it."

Are you aware that you sound like a rambling schizophrenic when you speak?



And regarding your comment about Sorabji not being able to reciprocate your love for him, you should not assume that we don't think you're a necrophiliac.  And good job on ducking the question about Jonathan Powell ^^  Do you hug a pillow at night and pretend it's him?

[panic]

Now, now, that's not nice.

I think this topic was originally meant to be about sweet pieces as in pleasant, not sweet as in awesome. This might cause some confusion to someone that peeks his head in here: "What does Piano Street say the most pleasant piece ever composed is? Why, of course, it's Cogluotobusisletmesi by Barlow! YUS!!"

[ahinton]

So snuggums, when you say that when you list pieces as being particularly difficult, you do not have any actual experience in such works and can only mimic what other nameless sources have told you are difficult?

If by merely quoting - as I did - examples of what others have cited as "difficult pieces" I make it impossible for you to do other than extrapolate from such statements the conclusion that I have no actual experience in such works and can only "mimic", then so be it; please understand, however, that this is your conclusion and not mine.

Might I inquire as to who any of these sources may be beyond Jonathan Powell,?

You "might" - and, one may suppose, you "have", here - but that does not confer upon me any obligation to answer your enquiry, whose relevance to anything that might actually matter is not exactly enhanced by your false assumption that I have quoted Jonathan Powell as a source of such views - something that I plainly did not do.

and what makes you insinuate, but not actually outright say, because you never say anything outright or even coherently,

In your personal view...

that your precious Sorabji virtuoso is a better reference on the subject of what is and isn't difficult?

Firstly, I did not say that Mr Powell is as you describe him here - these are your own words; I would add that my view of him as a Sorabji performer is hardly mine alone. Secondly, I made no comparative judgement as to the value to anyone of Mr Powell's views on what is and isn't difficult. For someone who, by his/her own admission, hasn't read all that I wrote, you are certainly very forthright in your dogmatic interpretations of what you have and have not read.

Also, might I ask you what sort of personal experience you have in the subject matter?  Because if you say none I hope you'll be able to understand that I would have to take any of your blind claims with a grain of salt.  And please do not make the assumption that I also have no experience in these types of works, as such an assumption would be incorrect, as convenient as it would be for you.

You may. I would not "say none". The quantity of salt or any other substance with which you may or may not choose to take claims, blind or otherwise, that I have not even made is, of course, entirely up to you. I have made no assumption about your experience in any types of work, since I have never professed any qualification to do so; there would accordingly be no "convenience" factor to me, one way or the other.

Now concerning your completely wrong statement about Xenakis.

In your personal view...

May I ask if one of the people you refer to knowing personally is a Mr. Hill?

You may. It is not so. I did not even say that the performers to whom I refer were pianists in any case, although the fact that they are not - as actually happens to be the case - does not weaken the argument about what they state that Xenakis said to them at rehearsals; only their being outright liars could do that (and, as you have already observed, I don't - in your personal view - do "outright").

If you did your homework and read the Harmonoligia Series he published, you could have avoided making yourself looking like an idiot ^^  I quote from Xenakis directly:

"Chance. . .can be constructed up to a point and with great difficulty, by means of complex reasoning which is summarized in mathematical formulae; it can be constructed a little, but never improvised or intellectually imitated."

I hope this shows you how wrong you are.

Why should I make myself look like an idiot when others can make themselves look like idiots far more effectively than I could? Your citation of Xenakis, whilst obviously valid, is in writing and does not appear as obviously to cover what he might have felt impelled to say to any particular performer in the heat of the moment at a rehearsal. "This" therefore doesn't appear to "show" anything much at all.

But what do I know,

Apart from what you've so far told us, I have no idea - although I have little doubt that you will continue to enlighten us on that subject.

Please, tell me what musicians you are referring to when they say that it is ok to cut notes in Xenakis compositions.  I'd like to know ^^

Yes, I'm quite sure you would, but just one reason why I refrain from satisfying you with an answer is that, once again, you have the question wrong; I made no reference to what any other performers may or may not have thought about what was or was not legitimate to do in the performance of a Xenakis score, but instead quoted what they had told me that Xenakis had said to them, which is in itself quite a different matter.

And as a topic of curiosity, I wanted to know if you were aware of the fact that nobody in the world speaks like you, and that half of the things you say nobody would be able to understand.  Maybe that's why everyone dislikes you?

Have you heard me actually "speak"? Even if you had done so, would that alone qualify you to be able to say, unequivocally and beyond all doubt, that no one else does so as I do? How do you arrive at the word "half" in the context of what I "say"? Should I be flattered that, by implication at least, you think that somebody, everybody or any number of people in between therefore understands the other "half" of what I "say"? How privileged a position you must occupy! - in the sense that it apparently enables you to know absolutely "everybody" and thereby to be able to quote their views and their dislikes of anything and anyone!

"I am not about to argue with it, either; I am also not, however, about to elevate the subject of such difficulty above the point at which is has any real existence."

"I didn't and don't say that it is or is not anything of the sort, for, as I pointed out before, what I wrote was merely intended to be taken less than seriously rather than as the sarcasm which you have sought to find in it."

Are you aware that you sound like a rambling schitzofrenic when you speak?

In a word - no (I hope that this is not too difficult a concept for you or "everybody" else to grasp, for its sheer simplicity is such that even Mr Barrett has felt disposed to use it as the title of one of his works, as of course you already know). You cite three statements here. In the first, I wrote that I am not arguing for or against Mr Pace's view on the difficulties of certain pieces. In the second, I argued that the perceived difficulty or otherwise of any given work should not be accorded undue importance - I should perhaps have clarified my reasoning by adding "except in cases where the composer's principal intent was to create difficulty for its own sake" (although doubtless you would then have found it "convenient" to assume - albeit quite wrongly - that I seek to attribute such an intent to some of the composers mentioned - which I do not). In the third, I noted that there is a difference between writing something that is not intended to be taken too seriously and writing intended sarcasm. I see no incompatibility between these statements, but then I would appear not to have your level of perception. By the way, the long word you use here has no "t" and its "f" should be "ph" in customary UK English.

And regarding your comment about Sorabji not being able to reciprocate your love for him, you should not assume that we don't think you're a necrophiliac.  And good job on ducking the question about Jonathan Powell ^^  Do you hug a pillow at night and pretend it's him?

Who is this "we" of whom you write? I didn't take your statement about Mr Sorabji or your question about Mr Powell seriously enough to assume that they warranted - or that you even sought - answers, so I didn't even bother to duck the latter as there seemed to be little or nothing to duck. I might ask you if you hug a pillow at night and pretend that it's Mr Xenakis or Mr Pace, but that would of course be another rhetorical question not to be taken any more seriously than I took yours - to say nothing of the fact that answering either of these puerile questions seriously - or indeed even at all - would be grossly insulting to Messrs Sorabji, Powell, Xenakis and Pace.

Enough!

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA

SPARINGLY MUFF

[mephisto]

If by merely quoting - as I did - examples of what others have cited as "difficult pieces" I make it impossible for you to do other than extrapolate from such statements that I have no actual experience in such works and can only "mimic", then so be it; please understand, however, that this is your conclusion and not mine.
You "might" - and, one may suppose, you "have", here - but that does not confer upon me any obligation to answer your enquiry, whose relevance to anything that might actually matter is not exactly enhanced by your false assumption that I have quoted Jonathan Powell as a source of such views - something that I plainly did not do.
In your personal view...
Firstly, I did not say that Mr Powell is as you describe him here - these are your own words; I would add that my view of him as a Sorabji performer is hardly mine alone. Secondly, I made no comparative judgement as to the value to anyone of Mr Powell's views on what is and isn't difficult. For someone who, by his/her own admission, hasn't read all that I wrote, you are certainly very forthright in your dogmatic interpretations of what you have and have not read.
You may. I would not "say none". The quantity of salt or any other substance with which you may or may not choose to take claims, blind or otherwise, that I have not even made is, of course, entirely up to you. I have made no assumption about your experience in any types of work, since I have never professed to be qualified to do so; there would accordingly be no "convenience" to me one way or the other.
In your personal view...
You may. It is not so. I did not even say that the performers to whom I refer were pianists in any case, although the fact that they are not - as is the case - does not weaken the case as to what they state that Xenakis said to them at rehearsals; only their being outright liars could do that (and, as you have already observed, I dodn't - in your personal view - do "outright").
Why should I make myself look like an idiot when others can makes themselves look like idiots far more effectively than I could? Your citation of Xenakis, whilst obviously valid, is in writing and does not appear as obviously to cover what he might have felt impelled to say to any particular performer in the heat of the moment at a rehearsal. "This" therefore doesn't appear to "show" anything much at all.
Apart from what you've so far told us, I have no idea - although I have little doubt that you will continue to enlighten us on that subject.
Yes, I'm quite sure you would, but just one reason why I refrain from satisfying you with an answer is that, once again, you have the question wrong; I made no reference to what any other performers may or may not have thought about what was or was not legitimate to do in performance of a Xenakis score, but quoted what they had said that Xenakis had said to them, which is in itself quite a different matter.
Have you heard me actually "speak"? Even if you had done so, would that alone qualify you to be able to say, unequivocally and beyond all doubt, that no one else does so as I do? How do you arrive at the word "half" in the context of what I "say"? Should I be flattered that, by implication at least, you think that somebody, everybody or any number of people in between therefore understands the other "half"? How privileged a position you must occupy! - in the sense that it apparently enables you to know absolutely "everybody" and thereby to be able to quote their views on their dislikes of anything and anyone!
In a word - no (I hope that this is not too difficult a concept for you or "everybody" else to grasp, for its sheer simplicity is such that even Mr Barrett has felt disposed to use it as the title of one of his works, as of course you already know). You cite three statements here. In the first, I wrote that I am not arguing for or against Mr Pace's view on the difficulties of certain pieces. In the second, I argued that the perceived difficulty or otherwise of any given work should not be accorded undue importance - I should perhaps have clarified my reasoning by adding "except in cases where the composer's principal intent was to create difficulty for its own sake" (although doubtless you would then have found it "convenient" to assume - albeit quite wrongly - that I seek to attribute such an intent to some of the composers mentioned - which I do not). In the third, I noted that there is a difference between writing something that is not intended to be taken too seriously and writing intended sarcasm. I see no incompatibility between these statements, but then I would appear not to have your level of perception. By the way, the long word you use here has no "t" and its "f" should be "ph" in customary English English.
Who is this "we" of whom you write? I didn't take your statement about Mr Sorabji or your question about Mr Powell seriously enough to assume that it warranted - or that you even sought - answers, so I didn't even bother to duck the latter as there seemed to be little or nothing to duck. I might ask you if you hug a pillow at night and pretend that it's Mr Xenakis or Mr Pace, but that would of course be another rhetorical question not to be taken any more seriously than I took yours - to say nothing of the fact that answering either of these puerile questions seriously - or indeed even at all - would be grossly insulting to Messrs Sorabji, Powell, Xenakis and Pace.

Enough!

Best,

Alistair

I hereby make this the 2nd greatest post in the history of the piano forum! For its sheer amount of ingeniousness and pleasent amount of pure logic.

[stevie]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA

SPARINGLY MUFF

and you hereby proclaim this to be the no1?

[ahinton]

I admit that I did write "Enough!" in my last, but it occurs to me that there are some as yet unclarified (at least for some people!) issues with regard both to Mr Powell and to the "difficulty" question which I hope I may be forgiven for indulging.

Mr Powell is not "my" Mr Powell, as "ilovexenakis" infers; if he is anyone's Mr Powell, he is Mr Powell's Mr Powell. I have, in any case, appropriately at all times confined all my remarks about Mr Powell to the work that he has done and is doing within his profession; no inferences should therefore be drawn from what I have written in terms of Mr Powell as a person, to which I have appropriately made no reference whatsoever.

The question of "precious"ness requires rather more elucidation. If a thing is described as "precious", it is assumed that such description is intended to suggest a rarity and a value - a rarity value, indeed. Given that the sheer lucidity, textual accuracy and persuasiveness with which Mr Powell presents the Sorabji piano works in his repertoire is accepted by almost all who have heard it to be a phenomenon far from common to pianists as a whole, it is perhaps not unreasonable to describe Mr Powell's achievements in this field as "precious".

"ilovexenakis" therefore appears to have gotten his statements half right here; perhaps we should all be duly appreciative of that.

The much-vaunted "difficulty" question really does need to be put in proper perspective.

When, for example, Ian Pace describes certain piano pieces as "difficult", it would seem unlikely that he intends his assessments to apply universally - in other words (although I do not, of course, seek to speak for him in this forum in his participatory absence therefrom), I do not assume that he is endeavouring to offer any kind of judgement as to how "difficult" these or any other works may be to Mr Powell, Mr Hodges or indeed anyone else who might also play them.

Furthermore, Mr Pace's comments as presented here by "ilovexanakis" do not identify what specific characteristics of these pieces encompass what specific "difficulties"; in so saying, I am not, however, seeking to suggest that Mr Pace either does not have ideas on this or has not expressed them - neither am I necessarily implying that "ilovexenakis" has deliberately or unwittingly omitted to reveal any further details that Mr Pace may have written to him on the subject.

In the absence of more specifics, it might not be unreasonable to assume that at least a major part of what is being referred to here is the sheer physical difficulty of getting the fingers accurately around the composer's notes and the mental difficulty of absorbing and accurately presenting some of the more complex rhythm patterns as notated by the composer. If this is indeed the intended sum total of what has so far been discussed in the way of "difficulty" in this and other like threads (and I am not necessarily suggesting this to be the case - merely to point out that there appears as yet to be little if any evidence to the contrary), then the discussion has surely been well less than complete. Except in cases (if indeed there are any such) where the composer correctly claims that his/her sole or principal desire has been to create difficulties - mental and/or physical for the performer, aural and / or comprehensibility for the listener - purely for their own sake/s, there is far more to a thorough, informative and genuinely enlightening assessment of "difficulty" in a piece than the required physical and mental agility of the performer alone.

Not only is one performer's concept of "difficulty" certain to be different to that of another, each individual performer will inevitably change his/her view of such "difficulty" as he/she progresses. "ilovexenakis" quite rightly invokes the matter of authority borne of practical experience in such things; accordingly, I cannot imagine, for example, Mr Pace's views on the "difficulties" he has encountered in certain pieces being the same now that he has performed them several times as they were when he was preparing his first performances of them.

Likewise, performers' interpretations are expected to change and mature. I think that I am correct in stating (although I've no time right now to check so will gladly stand corrected if I am wrong) that Arrau recorded some of the same piano works by Schubert as a young, a middle-aged and an old artist; inevitably, as his interpretations changed between these occasions, his view of their "difficulty" (assuming he had any such views) would likely have metamorphosed alongside this.

Then there is the question of the perceived difference in difficulty between "learning" a piece and "performing" it; since "ilovexenakis" likes identifiable citations, I can confirm that the pianist Carlo Grante spoke to me of this, naming examples of certain works which he had found harder to learn in the first place than to perform once learnt - this, again, is a personal view in terms of the repertoire concerned but, I suggest, rather more universally applicable as a concept.

Likewise, several pianists who have performed a considerable amount of Medtner's piano music have told me that they have found some of his more challenging works unusually difficult to retain, both physically and mentally, in the memory once learnt, despite their unquestionable enthusiasms for and commitment to the music itself; for the satisfaction, once again, of "ilovexenakis"'s appreciation of the black art of name-dropping, I include Anthony Goldstone and even Hamish Milne here. Again, however, such remarks were not intended to apply universally and, indeed, Marc-André Hamelin (another seasoned Medtner performer) has told me that this has not been his experience of the same repertoire.

Furthermore - to return to "ilovexenakis"'s comments - is a truth necessarily and by definition a truth just because it has appeared in print or in writing? - in other words, does the written word by definition carry more authoritative weight than does the spoken word? We should consider not only this factor but also that of whether any truth remains such forever; did Xenakis's views on the performing difficulties in his music (whatever they may have been) or his requirements of performers never change once they had first been established? Given that Xenakis's manner did not remain unchanged throughout his creative career, this might seem unlikely. Again, one has only to consider the performing difficulties in Carter's Third String Quartet and compare them with those of its two predecessors and two successors to realise that Carter's manner also underwent considerable changes in the 35 or so years before - and in the 35 or so years since - his Third String Quartet and that the general practical difficulties in performing his more recent music are on a different level to those of that quartet.

In short, when discussing this subject, one is inevitably faced with far too many important and wide-ranging variables of different kinds to allow for any possibility of coming up with hard-and-fast, inflexible, universally applicable and permanent conclusions about it.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I hereby make this the 2nd greatest post in the history of the piano forum! For its sheer amount of ingeniousness and pleasent amount of pure logic.

Thank you very much!

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

and you hereby proclaim this to be the no1?

Sorry.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10933.0.html

Scroll down to Bernhard`s post.( But read Jake`s post first!)

[mephisto]

Thank you very much!

Best,

Alistair

No thank you!

And I am completly seriouss.

[JCarey]

Oh dear, look at what I've started...

[ahinton]

Oh dear, look at what I've started...

Absolutely not your fault, mon ami!...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

I love Ludwig van Beethoven!

—Ryan

[pita bread]

i disagree, that piece is pretty, beautiful, but not sweet.

the piece is about dying after randomly ejaculating!

you expect sugar-coated semen?

If you eat a lot of oranges, yes.

[ahinton]

If you eat a lot of oranges, yes.

Sugar-coated semen and oranges with pita bread; now there's an interesting taste combination!

Best,

Alistair

[I Love Xenakis]

If by merely quoting - as I did - examples of what others have cited as "difficult pieces" I make it impossible for you to do other than extrapolate from such statements that I have no actual experience in such works and can only "mimic", then so be it; please understand, however, that this is your conclusion and not mine.

Uh oh!  You're slipping up sweetheart!  Your world of immaculate syntax and circular phrasing is falling apart!  Oh noes!!  Unfortunately for your argument (which you just repeat over and over) it WAS your conclusion.  Let's take a look ^^

"My comment here is based upon the experience of at least two performers who worked with Xenakis."

"my intention was to point out what others have claimed."

"I have personally made no claims about what may or may not qualify as a contender in this "most difficult" business - merely replicated the thought of others"

"If by merely quoting - as I did - examples of what others have cited as "difficult pieces"

Now tell me, did you either not actually say those things and someone hacked your account, are you a compulsive liar, or in your old age did you forget that you said those things?  Or are you just full of it?  Maybe a bit of all of them?  Maybe a lot?

You "might" - and, one may suppose, you "have", here - but that does not confer upon me any obligation to answer your enquiry, whose relevance to anything that might actually matter is not exactly enhanced by your false assumption that I have quoted Jonathan Powell as a source of such views - something that I plainly did not do.

Another quote from you:

"The only people who might have genuine insights into this question are pianists such as Jonathan Powell"

Well if you're not quoting Powell, the only person who is a source on this according to you (or pianists LIKE him such as Pace, which makes what I say correct by your logic, so thanks in a way for making my argument), then all you're doing is wasting our time.  Quit it Hinty!  Now I can go ask other pianists like him such as Madge, Knoop, the Takahashis, Ogdon or Hodges... oh wait they all say the same thing.  So is everyone besides Mr. Powell wrong?  Oh wait no you didn't ask Powell, and since just about all of the other pianists like him agree with Mr. Pace and myself, this once again proves me right and you... not so right.  Actually, since you haven't asked Powell and all those people think you're wrong, who is giving you such bullshit information?  I highly advise that you stop quoting whoever it is, for your own sake.

For someone who, by his/her own admission, hasn't read all that I wrote, you are certainly very forthright in your dogmatic interpretations of what you have and have not read.

Oh I've read all of the rest of it.  And due to the idiotic, pedantic, ostentatious way you speak it DOES unfortunately require the interpretive skills necessary to read through Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses.  If we're misunderstanding what you say, maybe you should dumb it down for us.  We're not all as smart as you =(  Also, I highly doubt that my "dogmatic" (and by dogmatic you mean 'contrary to what you might have possibly meant to have had your writing understood as') views are different from what 99.999% of the people reading here have understood you to be saying.  Now you seem to believe that I'm twisting your words, but please refer to the two items above, where it's plainly noted that you are the one who is having trouble with your words here; you know, trying vainly to cover up large holes in your logic or what could possibly just be outright lies.  It's very hard to know what you mean what in two posts you say contrary things.

You may. It is not so. I did not even say that the performers to whom I refer were pianists in any case, although the fact that they are not - as is the case - does not weaken the case as to what they state that Xenakis said to them at rehearsals; only their being outright liars could do that (and, as you have already observed, I dodn't - in your personal view - do "outright").

Oh, while you do nothing outright, they may do something outright.  Now, please give at least one of the names of these phantom performers so that we know you're not just making things up to once again cover huge, gaping holes in your argument.  It's very hard to believe that Xenakis would ever give the instruction to half-ass one of his pieces; everything he has ever written in his life (I have read the complete essays and books by Xenakis) would go completely against this.  I also happen to know several people who had the chance to meet Xenakis, and every single one of them said that Xenakis was completely rigid when it came to this sort of thing.  So, whose sources are liars?  Since mine have names and can prove their actual existence, I think that gives your little musicians a slight disadvantage here.

Have you heard me actually "speak"? Even if you had done so, would that alone qualify you to be able to say, unequivocally and beyond all doubt, that no one else does so as I do? How do you arrive at the word "half" in the context of what I "say"? Should I be flattered that, by implication at least, you think that somebody, everybody or any number of people in between therefore understands the other "half"? How privileged a position you must occupy! - in the sense that it apparently enables you to know absolutely "everybody" and thereby to be able to quote their views on their dislikes of anything and anyone!

Again, more pedantic bullshit.  When I say "speak", someone who usually acts as intelligent as you try to should easily be able to infer that I am referring to what you type.  Also, how can you be so sure that I have not heard you speak in person?  This alone unequivically and beyond all doubt destroys your puny, little, diversionary argument.  Should you be flattered that only half of the things you say are intelligible?  This depends on how low your standards are.  Apparently they are extremely low.  Maybe this is why you like Sorabji so much- low standards and he wills you his estate?  Why else would you like him?  And when I say "everybody", I mean every single person I have ever asked with the exception of your loyal forum lapdog, John Carey, who is actually a pretty cool guy so I have no idea how you managed to get him to give a *** about you.  Nearly every single person on this forum detests you and your huge ego and your excruciatingly boring posts.  And you talk about me quoting people- would you like direct quotes?  Because I can produce them very easily.

In a word - no (I hope that this is not too difficult a concept for you or "everybody" else to grasp, for its sheer simplicity is such that even Mr Barrett has felt disposed to use it as the title of one of his works, as of course you already know). You cite three statements here. In the first, I wrote that I am not arguing for or against Mr Pace's view on the difficulties of certain pieces. In the second, I argued that the perceived difficulty or otherwise of any given work should not be accorded undue importance - I should perhaps have clarified my reasoning by adding "except in cases where the composer's principal intent was to create difficulty for its own sake" (although doubtless you would then have found it "convenient" to assume - albeit quite wrongly - that I seek to attribute such an intent to some of the composers mentioned - which I do not). In the third, I noted that there is a difference between writing something that is not intended to be taken too seriously and writing intended sarcasm. I see no incompatibility between these statements, but then I would appear not to have your level of perception. By the way, the long word you use here has no "t" and its "f" should be "ph" in customary English English.

You mentioned Dillon.  Dillon is a New Complexity composer.  For the love of God, if we're not talking about Sorabji look up what you're saying PLEASE!!!  Do you even know the definition of "New Complexity"??  Or did you once again forget something?  Now, please show me what this word is that I have apparently misspelled.  Would you like me to point out all of the misspellings you have made, because believe it or not, there are quite a few, and they're not even particularly difficult words.  "Dodn't" is not a word, big boi, and this is just a single example.  You wouldn't happen to be referring to where I spelled "Schizophrenia", would you?  Because i'm looking at it and it's spelled correctly.

floccinaucinihilipilification =P

Who is this "we" of whom you write? I didn't take your statement about Mr Sorabji or your question about Mr Powell seriously enough to assume that it warranted - or that you even sought - answers, so I didn't even bother to duck the latter as there seemed to be little or nothing to duck. I might ask you if you hug a pillow at night and pretend that it's Mr Xenakis or Mr Pace, but that would of course be another rhetorical question not to be taken any more seriously than I took yours - to say nothing of the fact that answering either of these puerile questions seriously - or indeed even at all - would be grossly insulting to Messrs Sorabji, Powell, Xenakis and Pace.

Actually I have Ian Pace chained up in the basement and I snuggle with him when I'm feeling lonely.  Do you have an OUNCE of humor in your entire body?  Do you even remember what this argument was started over?  Are you really this pathetically insecure?


Oh, you asked me how you fail at life; THIS is how you fail at life.


ENOUGH!


Best,



Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji

[nanabush]

Isn't this a thread about the sweetest piece?  What's sorabji doing here?  jk

[pita bread]

Sugar-coated semen and oranges with pita bread; now there's an interesting taste combination!

Best,

Alistair

They call it Mandarin Cream-of-some-young-guy.

Isn't this a thread about the sweetest piece? What's sorabji doing here? jk

If we're talking about sweet as in lovely, I'll nominate Sorabji's Pastiche on the Hindu Merchant Song from Rimski-Korsakov's Sadko.

[JCarey]

I'll honestly say that I have not been following this argument closely enough to really know much about what it's about, or why it has become so intense, but I'd like to address a few things:

And when I say "everybody", I mean every single person I have ever asked with the exception of your loyal forum lapdog, John Carey, who is actually a pretty cool guy so I have no idea how you managed to get him to give a *** about you.

I don't really know Alistair enough to know whether or not I "give a *** about" him. The point is, he provides sheetmusic by one of my favorite composers, which otherwise would be impossible to obtain. Alistair has also never given me any reason to dislike him.

Nearly every single person on this forum detests you and your huge ego and your excruciatingly boring posts.  And you talk about me quoting people- would you like direct quotes?  Because I can produce them very easily.

Coming from a British family myself, I can perhaps relate to the British (yes, Alistair, we know you're Scottish, not British...) intellectual way of speaking (yes, Alistair, I know we haven't heard you speak before... (well I have, I suppose, after listening to the interview about your Quintet)) a bit more than most others. But in most cases, I'm not interested in reading it, which is why I tend to skim across most of Alistair's posts. He might have a lot of decent things to say, but I personally feel that his writing is really too tedious to bother with.

Actually I have Ian Pace chained up in the basement and I snuggle with him when I'm feeling lonely.  Do you have an OUNCE of humor in your entire body?  Do you even remember what this argument was started over?  Are you really this pathetically insecure?

I think you have a point here.

I guess I have more to say, but the posts in this topic have been longwinded enough as it is. Have fun, guys.