Contemporary Piano Music: A Question for "Soliloquy"

[ahinton]

Unaccustomed as I am to initiating thread topics (as I do so only very rarely), I should perhaps temper this one, even at its starting post, with the rider that the question I am about to ask, whilst being first and foremost intended for "soliloquy", is, of course, open also to anyone else to answer here.

Would you say that it is possible for a non-pianist listener well-versed in contemporary Western "classical" musics of all kinds to be able to tell,  purely by listening, that Finnissy's A History of Photography in Sound, English Country-Tunes, piano concertos 4 & 6, etc. are the work of a pianist and that, for example, Barrett's Tract and Ferneyhough's Opus Contra Naturam and Lemma - Icon - Epigram are not? I ask this out of pure curiosity, even if the question, its possible answers or even both may seem unimportant in and of themselves.

Best,

Alistair

[jakev2.0]

i implor  u...no more finissiey or sorbabjee.

[ahinton]

i implor  u...no more finissiey or sorbabjee.

"finissiey"? "sorbabjee"? Who are these people (if they are indeed people)? Never heard of them. But then I don't know the word "implor" either, so I guess that I'm not the best person to ask - still less to be "implor(e)d"...

Best,

Alistair

[jakev2.0]

woe b u who do not recogn9z the gh3ynezz of finicki n soreboobjies.

[ahinton]

woe b u who do not recogn9z the gh3ynezz of finicki n soreboobjies.

I really do think that it might not be a bad idea if you just go and have a game of scrabble for abit and see if anyone actually tries to answer the question in the meantime. If it IS a good idea then I'm sorry that I even bothered to ask the question - which was intended seriously - in the first place.

Best,

Alistair

[jakev2.0]

un4t2n8ly for my opponetnz, my superiority as a Scrabbelian is known throughotu chrstendom.

[pita bread]

Jake, sounds like imbetterthenyou hacked your account.

[jre58591]

thats just his other personality, peter.

[debussy symbolism]

woe b u who do not recogn9z the gh3ynezz of finicki n soreboobjies.

Greetings.

Jake has a thing in for Sorabji.

[mikey6]

ok, i'll take a stab at the question - seeing as how nobody else has.
Seeing as how I have never heard of those pieces before, i'll ask another related question - Does it have to be related to those 2 composers?  If the question is predominatly - is it possible for a non-pianist listener to distinguish between a piece written by a pianist and one written by a non-pianist? Is it gonna make a difference as to the repertoire? (unless there's something specific about those pieces that you would like to know, as I said I don't know them)
For instance I was thinking of something like comparing Dvorak's piano concerto with Chopin's - Obviously I can't answer the question because I am a pianist, but I do believe that the only way one could pick up the difficulty of the writing ("for two left hands") in the Dvorak is by reading through it.

[jakev2.0]

thats just his other personality, peter.

That is rite.

[ahinton]

ok, i'll take a stab at the question - seeing as how nobody else has.

No, indeed they haven't - nine replies so far at the time of writing and only one - yours - that attempts to address it, so maybe it wasn't worth asking in the first place...

Seeing as how I have never heard of those pieces before, i'll ask another related question - Does it have to be related to those 2 composers?  If the question is predominatly - is it possible for a non-pianist listener to distinguish between a piece written by a pianist and one written by a non-pianist? Is it gonna make a difference as to the repertoire? (unless there's something specific about those pieces that you would like to know, as I said I don't know them).

I mentioned not 2 but 3 composers, actually, but that fact does not of itself detract from your point. No, the question does not necessarily "have to be" related to those specific composers, but I referred to them when posing it partly because I though that it might be interesting to observe respondent's views (if any!) as to whether, if they might feel that Liszt's piano music sounded like that of a pianist whereas Wagner's small amount of it didn't, they might also consider such perceivable differences to be capable not only of continuing into our own times but also applying across an infinite variety of stylistic persuasions.

Let's see if anyone does indeed answer this!

Best,

Alistair

[dabbler]

[...] I though that it might be interesting to observe respondent's views (if any!) as to whether, if they might feel that Liszt's piano music sounded like that of a pianist whereas Wagner's small amount of it didn't, they might also consider such perceivable differences to be capable not only of continuing into our own times but also applying across an infinite variety of stylistic persuasions.

Doesn't _all_ piano literature stem from pianists in a wider sense of the word? Given the special role of the piano, there will be hardly any composer who has no idea of what his writing will mean for an interpreter (yes, and also Wagner ). I think many more composers wrote e.g. string quartets without having a feel or care for the characteristics of the instruments they wrote for.

Having said that, one may ask if the degree of pianism of the composer will be apparent to a (pianistic or, as you specifically asked for, non-pianistic) listener. For example, the plain virtuosity in many of Liszt's (or Chopin's etc.) pieces will let anybody guess that these works must have been written by virtuoso pianists. However, take the example of Ravel... From what I've read he was a very good, but far from outstanding pianist (I think he even dropped off conservatory because he was too tired of spending all his time with practicing). Still, one of the most difficult works in the mainstream literature is from him. Thus, I'd say that without biographical knowledge, in general nobody, pianist or non-pianist should be able to hear the degree to which the composer was capable of playing the piano.

Obviously, to the player, some writing "feels" more pianistic than other in the hands, e.g. compare Chopin works with e.g. Schubert's (who apparently was not a very good pianist) Wandererfantasie. But this unpianistic feel also holds true for the works of some famous pianists, e.g. Brahms or Prokofiev (in this latter case I can't judge from personal experience), who maybe simply didn't care about the pragmatic issues of playing. In any case, it's the task of the interpreter that these differences are not an issue in the performance.

A final aspect is whether it is audible if a composer thinks more in terms of the piano itself or more in orchestral terms in his works, depending on whether he's primarily a pianist. Again, I think, a general statement is hard to give: I would say that most of Mozart's piano sonatas are very much from the point of view of the piano (to me, the a minor has the most orchestral feel), despite that he lso wrote so much orchestral music. In contrast, Alkan, who wrote (almost?) exclusively for piano, shows a very orchestral style at times (up to even the work titles).

In summary, I don't think that a general statement can be made that links the vast spectrum of style in piano music to the degree with which the composer is connected with the piano -- there are exceptions to every "rule". And regarding the contemporary examples in your original posting (which I don't know): I don't see why any of this should depend on the particular musical epoch.

[ahinton]

Thank you for your detailed, interesting and well-considered response!

Doesn't _all_ piano literature stem from pianists in a wider sense of the word? Given the special role of the piano, there will be hardly any composer who has no idea of what his writing will mean for an interpreter (yes, and also Wagner ). I think many more composers wrote e.g. string quartets without having a feel or care for the characteristics of the instruments they wrote for.

I think that, whislt this is true as far as it goes, most composers up to around Chopin's era played the piano (or one or more of its keyboard predecessors) as a matter of course as part of their general activites as professional musicians, but during the last 175 years or so there have been far more composers who could not be described as "composer-pianists"; during this time, those who have continued to pursue dual careers as composer and pianist have thus become somewhat more exceptional and their names are remembered specifically as "composer-pianists" - Liszt, Alkan, Busoni, Godowsky, Skryabin, Rakhmaninov, Medtner, Bartók, Prokofiev and so on. Since those days, even less composers fall within the "composer-pianist" description. Yes, most composers will at some time have some experience of what it is to play the instrument, but that is in most cases a far cry from the level of pianistic experience that Rakhmaninov and Godowsky had.

Having said that, one may ask if the degree of pianism of the composer will be apparent to a (pianistic or, as you specifically asked for, non-pianistic) listener. For example, the plain virtuosity in many of Liszt's (or Chopin's etc.) pieces will let anybody guess that these works must have been written by virtuoso pianists. However, take the example of Ravel... From what I've read he was a very good, but far from outstanding pianist (I think he even dropped off conservatory because he was too tired of spending all his time with practicing). Still, one of the most difficult works in the mainstream literature is from him. Thus, I'd say that without biographical knowledge, in general nobody, pianist or non-pianist should be able to hear the degree to which the composer was capable of playing the piano.

I find myself agreeing with much of what you write here and you are quite correct in what you say about Ravel. I also, for example, remember thinking what an attractive work Tippett's Piano Concerto would be to play after I first heard it - and then getting the score and finding, to my shock, dismay and chagrin, that it's one of the most clumsily written of all piano concerti from a purely pianistic standpoint, a fact that I would never have guessed from listening to it alone (but then I am not a pianist); OK, the pianist I heard playing it was John Ogdon, but the point still applies, I think.

Obviously, to the player, some writing "feels" more pianistic than other in the hands, e.g. compare Chopin works with e.g. Schubert's (who apparently was not a very good pianist) Wandererfantasie. But this unpianistic feel also holds true for the works of some famous pianists, e.g. Brahms or Prokofiev (in this latter case I can't judge from personal experience), who maybe simply didn't care about the pragmatic issues of playing. In any case, it's the task of the interpreter that these differences are not an issue in the performance.

Again, I'm largely with you here, although I don't quite see eye to eye with you about either Brahms or Prokofiev, particularly the latter in specific terms of not caring about "the pragmatic issues of playing"; Prokofiev almost certainly performed his own music more often than Brahms performed his, so he must surely had given some thought to such issues, so I am inclined to think that the truth here may lie somewhere nearer the notion that each of them wrote for the instrument to suit their own particular traits as a pianist rather than in any more general consideration of other pianists as a whole.

A final aspect is whether it is audible if a composer thinks more in terms of the piano itself or more in orchestral terms in his works, depending on whether he's primarily a pianist. Again, I think, a general statement is hard to give: I would say that most of Mozart's piano sonatas are very much from the point of view of the piano (to me, the a minor has the most orchestral feel), despite that he lso wrote so much orchestral music. In contrast, Alkan, who wrote (almost?) exclusively for piano, shows a very orchestral style at times (up to even the work titles).

Good points!

In summary, I don't think that a general statement can be made that links the vast spectrum of style in piano music to the degree with which the composer is connected with the piano -- there are exceptions to every "rule". And regarding the contemporary examples in your original posting (which I don't know): I don't see why any of this should depend on the particular musical epoch.

OK. I realise that you are not familiar with the more contemporary examples that I cited, so I remain interested to hear the responses of those who are, just to see if anyone might think that pieces by composers from the so-called "new complexity" movement may for some reason/s be considered differently.

Thanks once again.

Best,

Alistair

[iumonito]

It is not new for new music to be misunderstood and considered unplayable.  It happened to such staples as Hammerklavier, the chopin etudes and the first Tchaikovsky piano concerto.

A couple of generations later the technical advances in these works were well assimilated in the collective culture of pianists and now everyone plays them.

Godowsky is going through that process now.  I anticipate that in a couple of generations the Godowsky studies will be as ubiquitous as today is Rachmaninov 2nd piano sonata and Ravel's Gaspard (not every one can play it, but anyone who really can play has them within their grasp).

I think we are too close to the trees to figure out what modern music comes from a pianist and what not.  My guess too is that music for the piano by non pianists, unless really the product of a pianistic mind not recognized as such (think Corigliano), will fall by the way side, and only the pianistic literature will endure.

Sorabji, Ligeti and Glass, for example, will survive.  I don't know Barrett's nor Ferneyhough's work, so I don't know whether they are pianisitic advances derived from the piano, of whether there are only unpianistic machinations.

[ahinton]

It is not new for new music to be misunderstood and considered unplayable.  It happened to such staples as Hammerklavier, the chopin etudes and the first Tchaikovsky piano concerto.

A couple of generations later the technical advances in these works were well assimilated in the collective culture of pianists and now everyone plays them.

Very true - and much the same can be said for certain works by Liszt.

Godowsky is going through that process now.  I anticipate that in a couple of generations the Godowsky studies will be as ubiquitous as today is Rachmaninov 2nd piano sonata and Ravel's Gaspard (not every one can play it, but anyone who really can play has them within their grasp).

Alkan has been going through it, too, albeit from a slightly earlier date; the big difference between, Beethoven, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, etc. and Godowsky and Alkan in this context is that the gap between the composition and the absorption into the "standard" repertoire is very much greater in the latter cases; even the Rakhmaninov and Ravel work that you mention took nowhere near so long to become accepted as "playable" repertoire.

I think we are too close to the trees to figure out what modern music comes from a pianist and what not.  My guess too is that music for the piano by non pianists, unless really the product of a pianistic mind not recognized as such (think Corigliano), will fall by the way side, and only the pianistic literature will endure.

I think that you have a good point here but, if we are indeed "too close to the trees", it might be argued that, only a few years ago, one might likewise have been forgiven for wondering whether we were "too near to the trees" in the cases of Godowsky and Alkan because, in spite of their music not being recently composed, hardly any pianists had risen to their challenges (and, let's face it, their expansions of technical boundaries for pianists were immense).

Sorabji, Ligeti and Glass, for example, will survive.  I don't know Barrett's nor Ferneyhough's work, so I don't know whether they are pianisitic advances derived from the piano, of whether there are only unpianistic machinations.

I'm not at all sure about your inclusion of Glass in this context! - and, apart from his undeniably important cycle of Études, even Ligeti did not contribute a gret amount to the piano repertoire. The point of my references to Barrett and Ferneyhough was that they are not pianists whereas Finnissy is a pianist, so I also look forward to anyone's observations on the subject with specific reference to their respective piano works.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Alkan because, in spite of their music not being recently composed, hardly any pianists had risen to their challenges (and, let's face it, their expansions of technical boundaries for pianists were immense).


Best,

Alistair

This is a terrible missconception. Of course some of his bigger pieces are extremely difficult(Concerto for solo piano).

As for the original question.

Some times you can really hear if a piece is composed by a pianist, because they contain a lot of pianstic figurations, and focus on genres like paraphrases (especially romantinc music by people like Liszt and Thalberg).

With some types of modern composers it is more difficult. I for one would never have belived that Boulez' 2nd piano Sonata was written by a pianist(Boulez was/is a pianist). But because he writes in a (post) serial style, his music will not have  a "typical" pianistic style, wit a lot of scales and arpeggios. Most pianist start with baroque, classical and romantic music, and often music written by those composers of those epoces(especially romantic, and I know that Bach didin't compose piano music...) are what we consider pianistic(some people have said that the music by Chopin and Medtner(for instance) "feels" very good to the hands).

It seams almost impossible for me how a serialistic piece or a piece by composers like Feynbourgh(sorry if the spelling is wrong) can be pianistic. I would guess that when Feynbourgh composes for the piano, his reason for the instrument is timbre, the technical side of the piano is probably secondary to him. Still a pianist may compose a piece like a Feynbourgh piece wich won't be pianistic at all.

Another point is how composers get performers to make their pieces playable, because they themself haven't got the experience to know if the piece is playable(think Barber' fugue of his Sonata+John Browning and Brahms' Violin concerto+Joachim). How can you know wether the composers is a pianist or not. I for one think it is almost impossible, with some exeptions to the rule(a romatic paraphrase like those by Thalbergs, written by a bassoon player, I don't think so!).

[ahinton]

This is a terrible missconception. Of course some of his bigger pieces are extremely difficult(Concerto for solo piano).

What is a "terrible misconception"? The notion that Alkan expanded pianistic horizons and expectations in his work? surely not. Yes, the Concerto for Solo piano is indeed difficult, but then there are many other solo piano works in his output (not all of them, obviously) that also set what were, at the time of composition, regarded as unprecedented challenges to the player (some of them probably even made Liszt's eyebrows raise) and this is the main reason why such music has lain untouched by most pianists until the last 40-50 years or so.

As for the original question.

Some times you can really hear if a piece is composed by a pianist, because they contain a lot of pianstic figurations, and focus on genres like paraphrases (especially romantinc music by people like Liszt and Thalberg).

With some types of modern composers it is more difficult. I for one would never have belived that Boulez' 2nd piano Sonata was written by a pianist(Boulez was/is a pianist). But because he writes in a (post) serial style, his music will not have  a "typical" pianistic style, wit a lot of scales and arpeggios. Most pianist start with baroque, classical and romantic music, and often music written by those composers of those epoces(especially romantic, and I know that Bach didin't compose piano music...) are what we consider pianistic(some people have said that the music by Chopin and Medtner(for instance) "feels" very good to the hands).

It's interesting that you feel that it is possible to tell that at least some piano music sounds as though composed by pianists, but you do not really define that kind of pianistic "style" within which you feel that such works belong and Boulez's Second Piano Sonata doesn't - nor, perhaps more importantly, do you say why you think that the latter doesn't have an obviously "pianistic style", beyond mentioning the obvious lack of scale and arpeggio passages in the Boulez. Whilst I see where you're coming from here, I'd like also to think that the kind of "essential pianism" that may emanate from a pianist when composing would add up to more than just that!

Boulez was indeed a pianist and, although I have not been around for anything like long enough to have heard him play, Paul Sacher once told me that he remembers a very intense youg Boulez who would spend the day teaching and then think nothing of practising the piano for hours. Boulez not only premičred (I think) Book I of his Structures with Messiaen and later played it with Messiaen's then wife-to-be, Loriod, he apparently also performed his Piano Sonata No. 2 on more than one occasion (although I don't have the details to hand), so it seems that he must have been quite a considerable pianist, although, of course, he has not played the piano in public now for many years.

It seams almost impossible for me how a serialistic piece or a piece by composers like Feynbourgh(sorry if the spelling is wrong) can be pianistic. I would guess that when Feynbourgh composes for the piano, his reason for the instrument is timbre, the technical side of the piano is probably secondary to him. Still a pianist may compose a piece like a Feynbourgh piece wich won't be pianistic at all.

The name's Ferneyhough. Brian Ferneyhough. What you say here about his reasoning may or may not be apposite, but I wonder how (or indeed if) you (or anyone else) might draw a distinction between his approach to piano writing and the results that he gets and those of Finnissy who is a pianist.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I sent this thread to a friend of mine, who would not profess to being a pianist, and has a considerable interest in contemporary music, so I thought his response might be of interest.

"In some cases a non-pianist can tell: amongst contemporary composers
 who have written important music for piano, I'd put together four
 major classes.

 Pianists who write music that makes it clear to me that they're
 pianists: Finnissy, Lachenmann (though he isn't a particularly good
 pianist), Lutoslawski, Messiaen (primarily an organist), Kurtag.
 Pianists who write music that doesn't make it clear that they're
 pianists: Boulez.
 Non-pianists who make music that doesn't make it clear to me that
 they're non-pianists: Ligeti (can't have been too terrible: he liked
 to play D960).
 Non-pianists who write music that makes it clear to me that they're
 non-pianists: Barrett, Schnittke, Rihm, Xenakis.

 There are also some composers who fall in between classes: some of
 Ferneyhough's piano writing sounds clearly unpianistic to me, some of
 it does not: similarly with Henze and Carter.

 As an addendum, I should say that Boulez's "sur Incises" sounds a lot
 more conventionally pianistic than his earlier work, and I would peg
 it as the work of a pianist."

[soliloquy]

Since you only brought up Finnissy, Barrett and Ferneyhough does that mean we're only talking about New Complexity composers?

To be honest, if I were listening to a random Finnissy piece for the first time and had no prior knowledge of his pianistic skills, the idea that he was actually a very proficient pianist himself would not jump into my mind, although, if asked, I would POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that he was, but probably not.  If, hypothetically, I had no knowledge on Ferneyhough, Finnissy or Barrett and I was then told that one of them was a pianist, and that the others weren't, it would probably be easy to identify that the actual pianist is Finnissy, due to the fact that his pieces are more pianistic than the others, and seem to be heavily influenced by the restraints and natural tendencies of a pianist's hands.  The others are the exact opposite; as awkward, uncomfortable and nonsensical to a pianist as nearly possible.

[ahinton]

Ah! A reply from you, "s", at last! And thank you for it. I am interested in what you ahvre to say, just as I am in what one or two others have had to say, especially those who have some experience of the conteporary composers whose work I mentioned.

In answer to your question, no, I did not seek to focus ONLY on certain of the so-called "new complexity" composers (mon Dieu, what a ghastly term that is!  I wonder what my dear and much-missed friend and colleague John Ogdon would have thought of it...), but I did nonetheless want to bring a random selection of them to the fore as a kind of point de départ here; my reason for so doing was in recognition of that aspect of their expression that denotes a desire to push boundaries as far outwards as possible and, as I thought, some of their work might therefore be a good starting point for such a discussion. I hope that there will be more responses to this, at least some of which will arise from some experience of such music although, as I have now indicated, I do not at all want to confine the discussion to such musical persuasions.

Thanks for joining the discussion!

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

I think the easiest way to tell if an extremely modernistic piece was written by someone who plays the piano or not is whether or not it has been dynamic'ed to death.  Like... look at Herma and Stockhausen Klavierstuck X or stuff by Ferneyhough and Sciarrino.  Half the notes have their own dynamics XD  That seems to be one consistent indication.  Another is when you are given very painful ostinatos, and when I say painful, I mean they are literally painful in the wrist to sustain =/  Compare the LH ostinato from Rzewski's NAB4, then compare the ostinatos (CLUSTER ostinatos, how dare he!) from Barrett's Tract.  Rzewski is a pianist, and his is comfortable.  Barrett is not a pianist, and his is impossible.  Obviously these will often not apply to serialist works like those of Boulez.  Also, works that are simply impossibly dense are rarely written by pianist-composers- when I say "dense" I mean ferocious chordal passages, not just lots of notes.  Bussotti's "Pour Clavier", Xenakis' "Evryali" and "Synaphai" and, again, Barrett's "Tract" are good things to look at.  While these are never 100% accurate, they seem to usually point you in the right direction.

[ahinton]

I think the easiest way to tell if an extremely modernistic piece was written by someone who plays the piano or not is whether or not it has been dynamic'ed to death.  Like... look at Herma and Stockhausen Klavierstuck X or stuff by Ferneyhough and Sciarrino.  Half the notes have their own dynamics XD  That seems to be one consistent indication.  Another is when you are given very painful ostinatos, and when I say painful, I mean they are literally painful in the wrist to sustain =/  Compare the LH ostinato from Rzewski's NAB4, then compare the ostinatos (CLUSTER ostinatos, how dare he!) from Barrett's Tract.  Rzewski is a pianist, and his is comfortable.  Barrett is not a pianist, and his is impossible.  Obviously these will often not apply to serialist works like those of Boulez.  Also, works that are simply impossibly dense are rarely written by pianist-composers- when I say "dense" I mean ferocious chordal passages, not just lots of notes.  Bussotti's "Pour Clavier", Xenakis' "Evryali" and "Synaphai" and, again, Barrett's "Tract" are good things to look at.  While these are never 100% accurate, they seem to usually point you in the right direction.

Pretty good sense here, methinks - but let's also keep it going for anyone else with ideas on this...

Best,

Alistair