The people united will never be defeated

[iumonito]

Rzewski's (Rzewsky's?) masterpiece.  Anyone out there that has studied this or parts of it that cares to share?  It has a reputation for being really hard, although it seems to me that like everything it will have hard spots and not so hard spots (even the GodChops are like that).

Any ideas about selecting just a few variations, or any order of learning?   Favorite recordings, ideas about interpretation.

Maybe Susan will post fingerings.    (sorry, just in jest.  I am a fan of your good attitude and try to keep mine as healthy).

Goes without saying, not playing this any time soon, but just ordered the score and will start reading in a  few days.   

I do whistle really well.   

[pianistimo]

very funny.  hmm.  seems to me somebody was talking about this piece earlier on the forum.  have you used the search function about this - because i think it was extensive.  or are things deleted from the forum after  ayear or two?  would alistair have some insight into this one?  perhaps jonathan powell has played this?!  who was the performer most noted to have played this?

[ahinton]

very funny.  hmm.  seems to me somebody was talking about this piece earlier on the forum.  have you used the search function about this - because i think it was extensive.  or are things deleted from the forum after  ayear or two?  would alistair have some insight into this one?  perhaps jonathan powell has played this?!  who was the performer most noted to have played this?

Jonathan has not played it. Marc-André Hamelin has recorded it.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

oh.  ok.  is it still on u-tube for viewing part or all of it?  i noticed that when i found a thread from 2004 by searching 'the people united.'

thracozaag (koji) mentioned that he enjoyed the rzewsky performance, too.  he is the composer of the piece, right?  where would one find info about this piece from him?  is he still alive?  sometimes i do bizarre things when i want to really find out information - and i e-mail people whom i have never met on the chance that they might possibly write back.  i did this with a project on mozart cadenzas with denis pajot (sp?) and he wrote back!

if one were to find out from him or hamelin how much? for the cadenza - maybe you wouldn't have to write your own?  wonder if koji has written one?  i bet he could write one if he hasn't or hadn't.  also, there is a composer in NYC that is amazing.  i think his name is gordon beeferman.  really amazing.  https://gordon.inkbox.org/bio.html

and final thought - alistair could write this cadenza in his sleep probably.  why not ask him?!! not sure how much he charges - but am sure it would be worth a lot.

[mephisto]

Rzewski is still much alive, btw.

The cadenze is supposed to be improvised, not written out.

[dnephi]

Who has recorded it?

[mephisto]

The Composer
Hamelin
Ursula Oppense
Stephen Drury

Maybe others

[iumonito]

You all are so kind.

In jest, for now, my cadenza will be in the spirit of John Cage.

Food for thought, perhaps I will draw heavily on the original and its cultural context.  I used to play boleros at a restaurant many a moon ago, so who knows.  Not the same thing, but you get my meaning.

Makes you think of Jimmy Hendrix too.  And Crumb.  Hmm.

Keep it coming.

I think the selection in youtube works fine, making a 12 - 15 minute set.  Thema, 14, 20, 21, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, Cadenza, Thema.  Will likely start there after a read through.

[soliloquy]

I think the selection in youtube works fine, making a 12 - 15 minute set.  Thema, 14, 20, 21, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, Cadenza, Thema.  Will likely start there after a read through.

No way you HAVE to do Variation No. 27, by far the best one, and it's also one of the easier ones.

[dnephi]

Is this a piece whose value does not become fully apparent upon initial hearings?

[iumonito]

No way you HAVE to do Variation No. 27, by far the best one, and it's also one of the easier ones.

OK, OK, relax.  If I only play one variation it will be that one. 

Am I right that unlike the Goldberg and Diabelli variations, and more like at some point the Paganini-Brahms, there is a culture forming of playing just selected variations?

I had not thought of it before, but that is in line with a procedure I have in some of my own compositions, in which chance determines some portions are played, or for how long, but not all the music written is supposed to be played in one sitting.

Interesting.  It makes for a great variety (although not an infinite one) of texts.

[iumonito]

Is this a piece whose value does not become fully apparent upon initial hearings?

It sounds entirely approachable to me.  I do not get a sense of neither the perverse multilayering of Finnissy or Sorabji, nor the motivic compression of Boulez, but perhaps that is a function of the variations I have heard so far.  The tonality and immediacy of the subject, I think, grounds the variations in an almost pop/folk feel.

Ripe for cross-over.

An additional idea, Mozart's Je Suis Lindor variations may have a similar political undertow.  Perhaps the two can be played back to back.

[pies]

El Pueblo Unido is a great set of variations; however, I find Rzewski's North American Ballads to be much more interesting and would rather learn Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues and Down by the Riverside.

[opus10no2]

Awesome piece.

The variation form is , along with the 'etude', the most pianistically interesting form of piano music.

Harmonic, melodic and rhythmic variation can be employed in any other instrumental format, and tone colour variation can be employed with orchesta, but on the piano - the strength of the art of figuration comes into light.

This piece is fascinating for the new models of variation it employs, and moreso because it is actually completely worth playing.

I'd advise learning the whole thing, in an ideal world, but in a realistic program, I would consider it OK to select a cohesive series of variations and make a piece anywhere between 15 and 40 minutes.

[dnephi]

this truly actually like a bunch of etudes perhaps .

ON topic....

IT's pretty much pure destruction.

[increpatio]

Is this a piece whose value does not become fully apparent upon initial hearings?

Some of the variations are pretty oblique, but there are a good few that are entirely, obviously, beautiful.

Oh, could someone do me the favour of pointing out what variations are based on other songs? (he said I think he used two other independence-movement-related songs in it I think)  If you could give an indication as to how the tunes go if it's not obvious in the variation I would really appreciate it.

Cheeeers.

[soliloquy]

Some of the variations are pretty oblique, but there are a good few that are entirely, obviously, beautiful.

Oh, could someone do me the favour of pointing out what variations are based on other songs? (he said I think he used two other independence-movement-related songs in it I think)  If you could give an indication as to how the tunes go if it's not obvious in the variation I would really appreciate it.

Cheeeers.

As far as I know the claims that he used other songs for material is speculatory, although if you'd like I could give you his contact information (privately under the assumption you wouldn't go giving it to everyone) and you could ask him yourself

[pies]

Isn't Rzewski a communist?

[increpatio]

As far as I know the claims that he used other songs for material is speculatory, although if you'd like I could give you his contact information (privately under the assumption you wouldn't go giving it to everyone) and you could ask him yourself

It's in the sleeve notes to Hamelin's recording  ( https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/67077.html , that's pretty interesting)

"One is the Italian revolutionary song Bandiera Rossa, which refers to the Italian people who, in the 1970s, provided refuge for victims of Chilean fascism, and the second is Hanns Eisler's 1932 anti-Fascist Solidaritätslied which also figures in Marc-André Hamelin's cadenza."

I can make out the Solidaritätslied I think; there's a sample mp3 of the song here:
https://www.kpoe.at/bund/kultur/musikmain.htm
but don't have the variations on me at the moment so couldn't point to which one it's from.

can't pinpoint any memories of Bandiera Rossa though; there's an mp3 here: https://www.bibliotecamarxista.org/Audio/canzoni_lotta/canzoni_lotta.htm
Anyone spot it? [edit: internet tells me it's variation 13 : )  ]

Heh thanks for the offer of contact details. But.  Nope.  I'd be mortified to ask, especially given what I've managed to find in a ten-minute look on the net.

[iumonito]

As far as I know the claims that he used other songs for material is speculatory, although if you'd like I could give you his contact information (privately under the assumption you wouldn't go giving it to everyone) and you could ask him yourself

I'll let you know.  I was once 18 in a country where people used to protest for the sake of being like Lech Wałęsa, so I know lots of these songs.  Thanks to G.W. Bush, USA is getting there, but the Americans protest with their own songs.

1234 we don't want your stinking war, 5678 stop the killing stop the hate.

[increpatio]

Lots of what songs?  Lots of songs in that specific genre, or, more particularly, more songs that feature in the piece than I've seen people talk about?

[increpatio]

The variation form is , along with the 'etude', the most pianistically interesting form of piano music.

*cough* I'm reading this as a totally subjective statement.  Of course, if you wish to root for it in an argument with someone, I'd love take part.

Of course, there's nothing particularly god-given about it; it occupies a more general family along with fantasias and pieces with lots of thematic transformations. I feel.  Then it's a technique more than a form though, so.  Hmm.

Also: can't stand *cough*Paganini variations.

A lot of people would say the same about sonata-form.  Maybe not so many people would say it of fugues (at least, asserting its superiority over other forms); but, here's a question:

Anyone willing to stand up for some of the underdog-forms?  Any rondo-philes here?

And, to my knowledge, where variation-sets were written as the one piece, they were written as the one piece.  Playing only selections of them (unless one has reason to believe otherwise) is like playing just a single movement of a Beethoven Sonata, or the starting orgasm of de profundis.  Certainly not something that generally should be done without very good reason, right?

[iumonito]

*cough* I'm reading this as a totally subjective statement.  Of course, if you wish to root for it in an argument with someone, I'd love take part.

Of course, there's nothing particularly god-given about it; it occupies a more general family along with fantasias and pieces with lots of thematic transformations. I feel.  Then it's a technique more than a form though, so.  Hmm.

Also: can't stand *cough*Paganini variations.

A lot of people would say the same about sonata-form.  Maybe not so many people would say it of fugues (at least, asserting its superiority over other forms); but, here's a question:

Anyone willing to stand up for some of the underdog-forms?  Any rondo-philes here?

And, to my knowledge, where variation-sets were written as the one piece, they were written as the one piece.  Playing only selections of them (unless one has reason to believe otherwise) is like playing just a single movement of a Beethoven Sonata, or the starting orgasm of de profundis.  Certainly not something that generally should be done without very good reason, right?

It is funny you chose single sonata movements as your example, as it is somewhat a historical aberration to play them one after the other if not marked attacca.  In Mozart and Haydn's time it was quite common to play the movements of symphonies, concertos and sonatas dispersed throughout the program for the concert or performance, and Beethoven left, for example, specific instructions of what could be performed in one sitting out of Hammerklavier.  Not until recently have the Brahms Paganini been performed in their entirety, Schumann's Op. 13 has a bunch of variations that no one know for sure where to play, etc. 

I find it very unlikely that Bach conceived the performance of all the goldberg variations as the only permissible rendition of the work, and in fact, there are 14 canons not really for solo keyboard, but rather music to think, which are in fact rarely performed. let alone made part of an integral performance of the work, even though they are essential to the matematical gemmatria of the set.

The issue has not gone away.  Consider Boulez third sonata.

In that spirit, unless i am shown an instruction not to make a quilt out of the piece, I think I am not even musicologically unjustified to pick an choose a selection of variations.

Plus, as I was mentioning, doing so is consistent with my own aesthetic concepts of form in my fery few pieces, where the form is governed by interpreter decisions (or perhaps chance) and not all the music written is supposed to be performed in any one given performance.

[increpatio]

It is funny you chose single sonata movements as your example, as it is somewhat a historical aberration to play them one after the other if not marked attacca.  In Mozart and Haydn's time it was quite common to play the movements of symphonies, concertos and sonatas dispersed throughout the program for the concert or performance, and Beethoven left, for example, specific instructions of what could be performed in one sitting out of Hammerklavier.  Not until recently have the Brahms Paganini been performed in their entirety, Schumann's Op. 13 has a bunch of variations that no one know for sure where to play, etc. 

Ah, thank you for clearing up my ignorance a little : )  I think maybe what I was going for is that in many cases the published scores represent the ideal ways that a piece should be played unless it explicitly says otherwise.  Of course, you give me some anecdotal evidence to the contrary.  So I will acknowledge my historical ignorance, and not take my stance quite so seriously.

An elaboration I would like to ask for: Do you know if Mozart and Haydn themselves indulged in this decadent practice? ;P

I think that, somehow things also depend on the cohesiveness of the set of variations - I mean, say take Beethoven's set of variations in C minor; they're not very long, certainly, and there is a definite, very solid feel to the overall structure with little repetition in the figuration; given these considerations, I would not pay to go to a concert where someone was playing a selection of them, unless I suspected they might have a very good reason.

I find it very unlikely that Bach conceived the performance of all the goldberg variations as the only permissible rendition of the work

I agree with you there.  But, presumably, he considered it to be the best way of doing it, otherwise he wouldn't have put them in.  That is to say, all other things being equal, he would probably have preferred a performance of the whole work instead of just a selection of parts.

, and in fact, there are 14 canons not really for solo keyboard, but rather music to think, which are in fact rarely performed. let alone made part of an integral performance of the work, even though they are essential to the matematical gemmatria of the set.

Gould certainly wouldn't agree with you on that note : )    And neither, I think, would I.  In that I really find the canons to be very beautiful parts of the set of variations.  It seems to me that you could just as easily say that about the fugues in the wtc clavier of course, saying that one might as well leave them out because they're not purely pianistic creations.  Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

I have not myself been to any live performances of them; I am surprised to hear that people often leave the canons out.

In that spirit, unless i am shown an instruction not to make a quilt out of the piece, I think I am not even musicologically unjustified to pick an choose a selection of variations.

Of course in the case or Rzewski, he is alive; if you were doing a performance, you *could* ask him heh.  I'd certainly take his word for it   Many pianists alive would have a lot of issues with people performing single movements of Beethoven sonatas.

Plus, as I was mentioning, doing so is consistent with my own aesthetic concepts of form in my very few pieces, where the form is governed by interpreter decisions (or perhaps chance) and not all the music written is supposed to be performed in any one given performance.

I have no issues with that in and of itself (not that I think you think I do, just to let you know that I'm Not The Sort Of Guy Who Does).

Thanks for your reply dude.

[iumonito]

Ah, thank you for clearing up my ignorance a little : ) 

I wouldn't call it ignorance, just a state of belief.  I don't "know" any better than you do. 

I think maybe what I was going for is that in many cases the published scores represent the ideal ways that a piece should be played unless it explicitly says otherwise. 

Notation conventions change.  Plus, urtext is also a state of belief.

Of course, you give me some anecdotal evidence to the contrary.  So I will acknowledge my historical ignorance, and not take my stance quite so seriously.

An elaboration I would like to ask for: Do you know if Mozart and Haydn themselves indulged in this decadent practice? ;P

I wouldn't call it decadent.  And yes, most definitely.  You would get the first movement of a concerto or symphony quite in the middle of the performance of an opera.  In fact, is a passage was really well liked (people would clap right in the middle, just like in jazz and to certain extent opera today) the would go ahead and repeat the section, so it would be unusual (and unsuccessful) to play a movement non-stop beginning to end.

I think that, somehow things also depend on the cohesiveness of the set of variations - I mean, say take Beethoven's set of variations in C minor; they're not very long, certainly, and there is a definite, very solid feel to the overall structure with little repetition in the figuration; given these considerations, I would not pay to go to a concert where someone was playing a selection of them, unless I suspected they might have a very good reason.

Fair enough.  I think the same of Bach violin Chaconne.

I agree with you there.  But, presumably, he considered it to be the best way of doing it, otherwise he wouldn't have put them in.  That is to say, all other things being equal, he would probably have preferred a performance of the whole work instead of just a selection of parts.

Re the Goldberg, not so sure.  Their unity and completeness must have been a Platonic concept for Bach.  The reality of their performance is probably not a material consideration.  Remeber this was a work for private study and a little bit a defense of Bach os a composer in light of Scheibe's attacks on Bach's aestethics.

Gould certainly wouldn't agree with you on that note : )    And neither, I think, would I.  In that I really find the canons to be very beautiful parts of the set of variations.  It seems to me that you could just as easily say that about the fugues in the wtc clavier of course, saying that one might as well leave them out because they're not purely pianistic creations.  Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

Totally, sorry I was obscure.  I was not talking about the 9 canons in the variations for a two-keyboard harpsichord, but about the additional 14 canons on the first eight notes of the ground base.  Funny enough. you can find a fine performance in the Baby Bach cd of the baby Einstein series.   

Sorry I didn't know how to separate your comments from mine.

Very cool conversation.  Looking forward to more on this.

[opus10no2]

I use the word 'pianistic' as a reference to the figurations and textures of piano writing.

I don't mean general musical interest...but surely you can understand that etudes and variations are the most rewarding forms pianistically.

Etudes use a figuration as their musical basis, and exhaust the musical possibilities with a technical/pianistic idea.

Variations are different...working with the same musical material, the writing is forced to change for every variation and hence produces the greatest variety of pianistic devices.

[iumonito]

I use the word 'pianistic' as a reference to the figurations and textures of piano writing.

I don't mean general musical interest...but surely you can understand that etudes and variations are the most rewarding forms pianistically.

Etudes use a figuration as their musical basis, and exhaust the musical possibilities with a technical/pianistic idea.

Variations are different...working with the same musical material, the writing is forced to change for every variation and hence produces the greatest variety of pianistic devices.

I disagree with the part about the pianistic devices.  My perception is that the genre that really expanded those is the paraphrasis.  Liszt got all those cool effects and backgrounds trying to imitate the multicolor spectrum of the opera with orchestra and various (gorgeous) main-line voices.

Variations and fugues do kind of beat to the ground the thematic material, but the variation principle is very much part of, for example, the development in any sonata.  In late Beethoven you find the whole thing confused and meshed up.  What a  lovely scramble.

Things also get a little hairy with the multi-theme variation, such as Rzewki's.

Do not at least two prominent set of etudes are in the form of variations (or the other way around?)  Schumann and Brahms.

And then, what do you make of paraphrasis on etudes from others?  The ChopGods are kind of variations on the Etudes of chopin, and go much much beyond a figuration as their musical basis.  More like a concept or a few concepts or actually in some cases a bunch of concepts.

[increpatio]

I wouldn't call it ignorance, just a state of belief.  I don't "know" any better than you do. 

I will have to disagree with you on that point ;P

I wouldn't call it decadent. 

Of course I joking a little when I said it.  Just to clarify.

And yes, most definitely.  You would get the first movement of a concerto or symphony quite in the middle of the performance of an opera.  In fact, is a passage was really well liked (people would clap right in the middle, just like in jazz and to certain extent opera today) the would go ahead and repeat the section, so it would be unusual (and unsuccessful) to play a movement non-stop beginning to end.

Ah yes; the days have gone where one can sing along to Mozart in concert ;P

Re the Goldberg, not so sure.  Their unity and completeness must have been a Platonic concept for Bach. 

Hmm...I don't know - why not just say that he had an overall structure in mind, and he wrote the music to fit that structure?  I mean, that a lot of the music is transcribable to a lot of different instruments is true, but. Hmm. Not too sure what my point is now.

The reality of their performance is probably not a material consideration.  Remeber this was a work for private study and a little bit a defence of Bach as a composer in light of Scheibe's attacks on Bach's aesthetics.

I don't know if I agree too much about that.  Certainly, given how things were in Bach's time, I can imagine the variations being more a thing for private or personal performance; but they are not simply platonic entities; they also sound quite lovely.

Totally, sorry I was obscure.  I was not talking about the 9 canons in the variations for a two-keyboard harpsichord, but about the additional 14 canons on the first eight notes of the ground base.  Funny enough. you can find a fine performance in the Baby Bach cd of the baby Einstein series.   

Ah yes.  That makes *much* more sense.  I know these canons! I just hadn't put them both together.  One thing that can be said about why these canons are not performed along with the Goldberg variations is that they were not published with them; as far as I can find out on the net, they were only found in a handwritten note attached to one of the published manuscripts.

In response to opus, I have to say that the chief appeal of variations for me is often in their reharmonizations of familiar material and changes in style (in addition to changes in figuration that might accompany them).  Not that I don't like a good old passacaglia or two.  In some what what you're saying is that etudes are technically satisfying, as, essentially the style of variation you're idealising is going to look like a set of etudes on a theme.  If it's a case that only figurations are changed without altering other things, I have to say that Czerny's technical exercises come immediately to mind and, well, I find them a little lacking in content.  I mean, are you thinking chiefly of variations as being passacaglias and chaconnes, or?

[opus10no2]

I disagree with the part about the pianistic devices.  My perception is that the genre that really expanded those is the paraphrasis.  Liszt got all those cool effects and backgrounds trying to imitate the multicolor spectrum of the opera with orchestra and various (gorgeous) main-line voices.

Well, I agree they expanded the range, as well have other forms, but this was due to the era in which they were composed, Liszt did alot, in general, to advance piano writing.

But still, variations are the form that have the greatest potential for the greatest variety of figurations, in general.

And then, what do you make of paraphrasis on etudes from others? The ChopGods are kind of variations on the Etudes of chopin, and go much much beyond a figuration as their musical basis. More like a concept or a few concepts or actually in some cases a bunch of concepts.

True, actually Liszt's etudes are like this, but still they're all still etudes, just expanding the form, making it more interest, albeit with a loss of purity of the origin of the form.

[increpatio]

But still, variations are the form that have the greatest potential for the greatest variety of figurations, in general.

I would say books of pure practice figurations have the greatest potential for the greatest variety of figurations ;P