What do you see in the Carter Sonata?

[soliloquy]

I don't get it.  It seems boring and repetitive in the first movement, and there doesn't seem to be any harmonic progression.  Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting.  Then the second movement sounds effing identical to the first, just faster with more useless notes between the ones we already had to hear over and over.  Why do people get so attracted to this pile?  Someone explain.

[ahinton]

I don't get it.  It seems boring and repetitive in the first movement, and there doesn't seem to be any harmonic progression.  Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting.  Then the second movement sounds effing identical to the first, just faster with more useless notes between the ones we already had to hear over and over.  Why do people get so attracted to this pile?  Someone explain.

I'm presuming (and, I'm sure, correctly) that you are referring to the piano sonata. If it doesn't convey anything much to you (as seems obviously to be the case) then no amount of persuasion form me or anyone else is likely to change that, so I'm not about to bore you by trying, despite the fact that I find it a most engaging work at least on a level with the splendid Barber sonata, more approachable and indeed even memorable than any of the three Sessions sonatas (fine as they are) and a good deal more emotionally charged than the dry-as-dust Copland (to name just a handful of other mid-20th-century American piano sonatas). But I wonder just how many people really do "get so attracted to" it? It is certainly performed rather more often nowadays than used to be the case, but it still gets rather less exposure than the Barber or Copland sonatas (and the Barber is no walk in the park for the pianist either!). I have to admit that I've yet to hear a satisfactory performance of the Carter piano sonata; much as I admire and respect Rosen in so many ways for so much of what he has achieved, his accounts of both of Carter's major contributions to the piano repertoire (this sonata and the much later Night Fantasies) seem to me to be efficient but rather hard-nosd and at times bordering even on the perfunctory - indeed, a like-minded listener once said to me that his performance of Carter's sonata made it sound as though it was Copland's!

Sorry not to be of more help here; perhaps someone else can come to the rescue!

Best,

Alistair

[desordre]

 Dear Soliloquy:
 Don't get me wrong, but the fact that you can't understand a piece (or, for that matter, if you understand but dislike) don't make it crap. Notice that I respect you if you don't like the work, but your arguments are somewhat strange. For instance, you wrote:

(...)
- It seems boring and repetitive in the first movement, and there doesn't seem to be any harmonic progression. 
- Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting. 
- Then the second movement sounds effing identical to the first, just faster with more useless notes between the ones we already had to hear over and over. 
(...)

Reading the above, I could think (with slight alteration) about Beethoven, or Liszt, or Debussy. In one hand, it's your impression about the work, and this is undeniable; but in the other, you told very little about the work itself or about Carter's artistry in general.
 To be very honest, I'm not in love with the Sonata, although I think it's an interesting work.
 By the way, I agree mostly with Mr. Hinton's post.
 Best wishes!
 

[soliloquy]

I'm presuming (and, I'm sure, correctly) that you are referring to the piano sonata. If it doesn't convey anything much to you (as seems obviously to be the case) then no amount of persuasion form me or anyone else is likely to change that, so I'm not about to bore you by trying, despite the fact that I find it a most engaging work at least on a level with the splendid Barber sonata, more approachable and indeed even memorable than any of the three Sessions sonatas (fine as they are) and a good deal more emotionally charged than the dry-as-dust Copland (to name just a handful of other mid-20th-century American piano sonatas). But I wonder just how many people really do "get so attracted to" it? It is certainly performed rather more often nowadays than used to be the case, but it still gets rather less exposure than the Barber or Copland sonatas (and the Barber is no walk in the park for the pianist either!). I have to admit that I've yet to hear a satisfactory performance of the Carter piano sonata; much as I admire and respect Rosen in so many ways for so much of what he has achieved, his accounts of both of Carter's major contributions to the piano repertoire (this sonata and the much later Night Fantasies) seem to me to be efficient but rather hard-nosd and at times bordering even on the perfunctory - indeed, a like-minded listener once said to me that his performance of Carter's sonata made it sound as though it was Copland's!

Sorry not to be of more help here; perhaps someone else can come to the rescue!

Best,

Alistair

It always sounds like copland to me.  and i hate copland =/  But I think more people play the Carter Sonata than the Copland.  And how can you compare the Barber and Carter sonatas?   That is like comparing apples and... some weird fruit that nobody's heard of.. that makes it burn when you pee.

[soliloquy]

Reading the above, I could think (with slight alteration) about Beethoven...

"Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting."


I'm not so sure Beethoven was a bit advocate of bitonality.

[desordre]

"Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting."


I'm not so sure Beethoven was a bit advocate of bitonality.

Please, I wrote "with slight alteration". By the way, Beethoven came to me in the other two statements. But I don't want to insult or discuss with you, it's just that your argument seems odd. Why bitonality must make anything more interesting? It's just one of several ways of pitch organization. Its use may be sublime or ridiculous (or both  ), it depends on the composer.
 Anyway, don't bother.
 Best!

[ahinton]

It always sounds like copland to me.  and i hate copland =/

Then I may surmise that you've probably been at the worst end of the performance of which i wrote that do not, I think, do the Carter sonata justice. I do not "hate" Copland (and indeed try not to "hate" anyone or anyone's work as such), but I suspect that the kinds of thing that satisfy me the least about Copland's music may well be not dissimilar to those aspects of his work that you find to be anathema. But let's remember that, in the days before Carter really got going as a composer in his own right, he was, in his rôle as a critic, one of Copland's most reliable and trenchant supporters (I'm speaking here of the 1930s and early 40s) - and they were freinds to the point at which Copland apparently even lived in with the Carters for a brief period during WWII and is even said to have written Appalachian Spring on the Carters' dining room table. Copland was the dedicatee of Carter's Holiday Overture of 1944 and then they began to go their very separate ways to the point at which Copland simply admitted to having little understanding of what Carter was up to - a view he changed at what was perhaps the peak of Carter's most challenging creative period when he paid fulsome tribute to Carter as one of the most important Americans working in any artistic field.

But I think more people play the Carter Sonata than the Copland.  And how can you compare the Barber and Carter sonatas?   That is like comparing apples and... some weird fruit that nobody's heard of.. that makes it burn when you pee.

If they do, I would be surprised - but then perhaps I should be surprised, for I cannot be absolutely certain of statistics here and do not claim to be so, although over here one hears the older composr's sonata a good deal more often than that of the younger. I am not "comparing" the Carter and Barber sonatas; that would indeed be to compare like with unlike. I merely sought to try to put Carter's piano sonata in some kind of context with five other mid-20th-century American piano sonatas and offer a few cents' worth of thoughts on that. I'll now put my cards on the table (not that now presumably long gone dining room table!) and admit - as you may well already have deduced in any case - that I happen to love Carter's sonata and, were I a pianist, I would certainly want to play it (some hopes!).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

"Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting."


I'm not so sure Beethoven was a bit advocate of bitonality.

But then Carter's sonata is not in any case "bitonal" in the conventionally understood sense of making a point of exploring two or more tonalities simultaneously (à la manière de Milhaud, par exemple) - it's far more of a case having the idea of conflict between one tonality based on B and another on A# as the vital part of its opening gambit and exploring those two as conflicting elements at various points as the work progresses rather than shoving them together in some kind of mortal combat. At the obvious risk of sounding somewhat fanciful, I might almost he tempted to suggest a similarity of approach between this and the ultimately irresoluble "conflict" between music and words that is the fons et origo of Strauss's final opera Capriccio from just 4-5 years earlier - especially as there is no clear result in the Carter in tems of the one tonality "winning out" over the other (well, perhaps B does just about "win", but hardly with anything remotely approaching tub-thumping triumphalism!)...

But, in the end, you obviously don't much like the piece anyway, so I guess that I'd better stop wasting your time over it!

Best,

Alistair

[franzliszt2]

I don't get it.  It seems boring and repetitive in the first movement, and there doesn't seem to be any harmonic progression.  Sure, it's bitonal, but that doesn't make it interesting.  Then the second movement sounds effing identical to the first, just faster with more useless notes between the ones we already had to hear over and over.  Why do people get so attracted to this pile?  Someone explain.

Simple minds struggle to grasp complex music 

[soliloquy]

Simple minds struggle to grasp complex music 

I hope that was some sort of self-effacing/abasing, ironic sarcasm.  But, make my day; enlighten me to this piece.  Tell me what is complex about it.  Don't be stingy with the details either; talk about specific measures/passages.


Also randomly a couple people here have said they like the Carter Sonata, but nobody has even attempted a reason to like it, or given it any merit from an academic stand-point.

[pita bread]

I hope that was some sort of self-effacing/abasing, ironic sarcasm.  But, make my day; enlighten me to this piece.  Tell me what is complex about it.  Don't be stingy with the details either; talk about specific measures/passages.


Also randomly a couple people here have said they like the Carter Sonata, but nobody has even attempted a reason to like it, or given it any merit from an academic stand-point.

The hell does it matter to me whether you like the Carter Sonata or not? I don't need any more reason to like a piece of music other than "it merely sounds good to my ears."

[franzliszt2]

I hope that was some sort of self-effacing/abasing, ironic sarcasm.  But, make my day; enlighten me to this piece.  Tell me what is complex about it.  Don't be stingy with the details either; talk about specific measures/passages.


Also randomly a couple people here have said they like the Carter Sonata, but nobody has even attempted a reason to like it, or given it any merit from an academic stand-point.

hahaha you always seek an academic answer! You are not very artistic are you?  Have you ever read a book called "the aesthetics of music" ? I forget the author, but it's fasinating! Maybe you should read it, it looks at a lot of issues with analysis and the ideas of absolute music. Give it a read, I highly recommend it! 

[soliloquy]

hahaha you always seek an academic answer! You are not very artistic are you?  Have you ever read a book called "the aesthetics of music" ? I forget the author, but it's fasinating! Maybe you should read it, it looks at a lot of issues with analysis and the ideas of absolute music. Give it a read, I highly recommend it! 

You're not very smart, are you?  The book is by Roger Scruton, by the way, and I have already read it.  Do you not know what the word "or" means?  I mean, you don't really seem to have a very firm grasp on the English language, which is totally understandable considering it isn't your first language (or at least I have always assumed; if it is, get help, and get it now), but "or" is just such an important word you really ought to learn it.  Like, for instance, when i said "OR [academic merits]" that means I was refering to the academic part AND something else.  That's how it works.  In this instance, the other part in question is "a reason to like it" which certainly encompasses the "aesthetic" of the music.  Like you know, cat OR dog, yes OR no, one OR the other.

It means choose one.  And, GFY, or drop dead.  I've never seen you say something even mildly (and I use the word mildly very loosely) intelligent or intellectual about music theory.  Ever.  You purport to have written all of these huge essays and dissertations on music theory, but every time you try to get into even the most very superficial, juvenile and effervescent conversations about any field of music theory it becomes completely obvious to everyone on this forum who has read no more than the prologue of Piston's Harmony that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.  So puh-LEAZE spare me.  I'd rather be looking for academic answers then pretending I have them.


Now if you want to prove me wrong, which you both can't and won't, why don't you take my request up and do some analysis of the Carter Sonata for me.  And yeah, there will be followup questions.

[franzliszt2]

You're not very smart, are you?  The book is by Roger Scruton, by the way, and I have already read it.  Do you not know what the word "or" means?  I mean, you don't really seem to have a very firm grasp on the English language, which is totally understandable considering it isn't your first language (or at least I have always assumed; if it is, get help, and get it now), but "or" is just such an important word you really ought to learn it.  Like, for instance, when i said "OR [academic merits]" that means I was refering to the academic part AND something else.  That's how it works.  In this instance, the other part in question is "a reason to like it" which certainly encompasses the "aesthetic" of the music.  Like you know, cat OR dog, yes OR no, one OR the other.

It means choose one.  And, GFY, or drop dead.  I've never seen you say something even mildly (and I use the word mildly very loosely) intelligent or intellectual about music theory.  Ever.  You purport to have written all of these huge essays and dissertations on music theory, but every time you try to get into even the most very superficial, juvenile and effervescent conversations about any field of music theory it becomes completely obvious to everyone on this forum who has read no more than the prologue of Piston's Harmony that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.  So puh-LEAZE spare me.


Now if you want to prove me wrong, which you both can't and won't, why don't you take my request up and do some analysis of the Carter Sonata for me.  And yeah, there will be followup questions.

I think the stupid one is you....you can't see when people are ripping the piss out of you, and then you go and amuse us more by firing almighty sad geeky essays. I write my essays to who are much much much more educated than you 

Now GFY since theres no one else who wants to F uck you! Or maybe write an essay on it!

Theres a great book called "the idiot" I forget the author  have you read it?

[ahinton]

Certain "exchanges" here have self-evidently proved both unedifying and unhelpful as well as putting neither participant in such exchanges in anything remotely approaching a positive light.

It seems to me that little useful purpose will likely be served by one person with his/her view of Carter's Sonata for Piano expounding upon it in the form of some kind of intellectual/academic synoptic analysis thereof if the intent is no more than to seek to convince someone else who simply happens not to respond to that work that they ought after all to do so, or at least ought to have another serious think about doing so; this is why I have not put forward any such "justification" myself, for there is and can be no absolute guarantee of drawing anyone to anything if that person happens, as one party appears to do here, to have some kind of temperamental antipathy to the work in question, since I suspect strongly that all the intellectual/academic "justification" in the world is unlikely to alter that basic personal antipathy to that work. And, in principle, why should such an approach necessarily be expected to exert such an effect?

Soliloquy simply does not warm to Elliott Carter's Piano Sonata. I do (and I also happen to find it rather remarkably sympathetically written for the instrument given that Carter is no pianist). I do not agree with Soliloquy's view, but he is as entitled to it as I am to my opposing view. So be it in both cases. For the record, I happen to find that, for me, most of middle-period Stravinsky may as well not even exist. Many others will and do find this heretical, to say the least. Well, so be it. None of these things are matters of "right and wrong", after all.

So please let us have no more flame wars over a (to me) fine and engaging piano work that Elliott Carter completed 61 years ago.

Thanks.

Best,

Alistair

[ctrastevere]

Well I like it...

[indutrial]

I hope that was some sort of self-effacing/abasing, ironic sarcasm.  But, make my day; enlighten me to this piece.  Tell me what is complex about it.  Don't be stingy with the details either; talk about specific measures/passages.

Also randomly a couple people here have said they like the Carter Sonata, but nobody has even attempted a reason to like it, or given it any merit from an academic stand-point.

Yes...and randomly you started a thread to say you didn't like the Sonata, albeit headed by a post that DOES NOT cite any specific measures or passages to back your broad reasons for not liking the piece. What, pray tell, makes certain notes useless in your opinion? I'm really curious because I know you like really complex stuff like Barlow and Xenakis. I need to know what qualifies something, and it can't just be a reminder of Copeland.

I agree with Alastair that this flame war is needless. The whole English grammar diatribe is just not as exciting after the 9,000th time you've seen it in a thread.

I personally don't think this thread has enlightened my opinion on Carter's Sonata in any way whatsoever. Many twentieth century sonatas are heavily complex pieces with loads of ideas intertwining and metamorphosing, combining elements of the past with newer experimental ideas, etc... I think that any discussion of a work like that is going to have to step it up beyond what I'm seeing here. It irks me when pigeonhole-ish terms like bitonality, etc... get thrown at pieces that probably have a lot more going on.

I'd love it if for once the operating brains in this forum would get together and have some positive and semi-objective discussions of any twentieth century piece in detail, especially a complex work like a modern sonata or string quartet, without resorting to "I like it" or "I don't like it" or worse yet "you're stupid because you don't like it" nyeh nyeh nyeh.... That being said, I'm going to go re-evaluate the Carter sonata.

On an unrelated note, has anyone heard or studied the Lutoslawski Piano Sonata? I've been reading about this piece but I've never heard of any recordings or articles about it.

By the way, The Idiot is a great book, like all of Dostoevsky's later works.

[mcgillcomposer]

Dear Soliloquy:
 Don't get me wrong, but the fact that you can't understand a piece (or, for that matter, if you understand but dislike) don't make it crap. Notice that I respect you if you don't like the work, but your arguments are somewhat strange. For instance, you wrote: Reading the above, I could think (with slight alteration) about Beethoven, or Liszt, or Debussy. In one hand, it's your impression about the work, and this is undeniable; but in the other, you told very little about the work itself or about Carter's artistry in general.
 To be very honest, I'm not in love with the Sonata, although I think it's an interesting work.
 By the way, I agree mostly with Mr. Hinton's post.
 Best wishes!
 

Not to get off-topic, but how can you apply those criticisms to Beethoven, Liszt, and Debussy?

[mcgillcomposer]

Simple minds struggle to grasp complex music 

'Complex' minds fail to recognize simple solutions.

[mcgillcomposer]

Now GFY since theres no one else who wants to F uck you! Or maybe write an essay on it!

Looks like you missed the mark again, 'cause I'd definitely *** soliloquy. 

[indutrial]

okay, now this thread is really going fallow. "Steve walks warily down the street with his brim pulled way down low"...

[mephisto]

'Complex' minds fail to recognize simple solutions.

No.

[mcgillcomposer]

No.

Yes.

Notice how "complex" is in quotations.

Or did you miss that simple detail?

[mephisto]

Yes.

Notice how "complex" is in quotations.

Or did you miss that simple detail?

I can't remember.

What did you mean? I tend to be slow sometimes....

[soliloquy]

I think the stupid one is you....you can't see when people are ripping the piss out of you, and then you go and amuse us more by firing almighty sad geeky essays. I write my essays to who are much much much more educated than you 

Now GFY since theres no one else who wants to F uck you! Or maybe write an essay on it!

Theres a great book called "the idiot" I forget the author  have you read it?

No I've never read Dostoevsky.  Well, at least not since I was in the eighth grade.  And I always prefered The Trial.  I can draw many parallels from that work to my situation in this thread; if you have read it (surely you have not, and probably haven't even read The Idiot) I'm sure you can see what I mean.  Actually, probably not.  Also, I am not writing essays.  I am responding on an internet forum with the vernacular above that of only a second grader; if you are able to get these two mixed up, I am sure that your purported "essays" which you are writing at the behest of only the greatest musical minds of our time are nothing more than "purported".  Please, post one of these incredible essays.  I am not asking you to write a new one; just let us see this wealth of infinite musical wisdom and knowledge you take precise care in mentioning approximately twice a sentence.

Yes...and randomly you started a thread to say you didn't like the Sonata, albeit headed by a post that DOES NOT cite any specific measures or passages to back your broad reasons for not liking the piece. What, pray tell, makes certain notes useless in your opinion? I'm really curious because I know you like really complex stuff like Barlow and Xenakis. I need to know what qualifies something, and it can't just be a reminder of Copeland.

I agree with Alastair that this flame war is needless. The whole English grammar diatribe is just not as exciting after the 9,000th time you've seen it in a thread.

I personally don't think this thread has enlightened my opinion on Carter's Sonata in any way whatsoever. Many twentieth century sonatas are heavily complex pieces with loads of ideas intertwining and metamorphosing, combining elements of the past with newer experimental ideas, etc... I think that any discussion of a work like that is going to have to step it up beyond what I'm seeing here. It irks me when pigeonhole-ish terms like bitonality, etc... get thrown at pieces that probably have a lot more going on.

I'd love it if for once the operating brains in this forum would get together and have some positive and semi-objective discussions of any twentieth century piece in detail, especially a complex work like a modern sonata or string quartet, without resorting to "I like it" or "I don't like it" or worse yet "you're stupid because you don't like it" nyeh nyeh nyeh.... That being said, I'm going to go re-evaluate the Carter sonata.

Thank you for taking the time to attempt to respond to my post.  I am afraid we are having a communication meltdown.  I am not neglecting to cite specific measures or passages out of inability or laziness; it is not necessary.  My thread is asking a question, not giving answers.  I ask what the value of the piece is, and only explain what I feel about it.  If you'd like to whip out some Schenker on it I promise you'll only validify my statement of repetitive and sparce harmonic progression, along with that of incidental notes in the rapido passages in the second movement.  Also, how exactly is "bitonal" a pidgeon-hole term?  It is a very specific and exacting description of a style of composition.  Also, you seem to be under the impression that this forum is CAPABLE of having a truly serious and in-depth conversation about the theory and motives of a work.  You are under a sad delusion, or self-grandeur, or both.  There are probably about 10 people on this forum who could do that, and 4 of them have already posted in this thread and have neglected to do so as they (we) know it is futile.

Looks like you missed the mark again, 'cause I'd definitely *** soliloquy.

Do not fret; we will soon be together <3  (cuz I'm going up to depaul in a couple weeks to meet with someone and can prolly swing down to juilliard on my way back for a little polyphonic triste )

[indutrial]

As in previous threads, I have to ask what the hell the point of a post like this is at all. Alastair was right on the money when he basically said that "nothing I say will matter compared with how you already feel." And, after many posts, he's still right. The thread is loaded with typical forum b.s....a semantic piefight here, a bunch of playful frivolities there, and a good old heap of arrogance stinking through every post. Since you pretty much know what the drill is on this forum (you've been posting here for quite some time), why bother starting threads like this at all if the 10 wise men (who you've partitioned off from the violent mob) can't save the topics.

What ruins the forum in my opinion is essentially the fact that 95% of the people here are simply pianists who can't help but contextualize things in the small musical worlds they've carved out, usually delineated by what teacher tells them to do and what their friends at music school do. The other 5% talks a lot of high-minded speak and feels overly righteous amongst the pack. Both groups do little to stimulate positive discussion of any topic and everyone retreats to their self-righteous comfort zones. What's sad is that in something as abstract as an internet forum, people can't chill the hell out and spend less time getting high on their own motivations.

I've listened to the Carter sonata once or twice since this forum cropped up and I am honestly not prepared to start making statements about the music. I had never heard it before and, without leaning on this theory or that, I think it's a very dense and dynamic piece, maybe not one that reaches out and grabs me in any way (Carter's 5 string quartets were more immediately intriguing), but still one that deserves to be looked into for many of its subtle points of interest. I can't really say more until I actually look further into the score. Suffice to say that (and I'm not trying to be mean) your criticisms of the work are not strong or convincing because they oversimplify the discussion of a piece that is not done justice by a quickly summed-up paragraph of one's opinion.

Based on what you say about the hopelessness of this forum, I still wonder why you bother at all.

Now, if you will, what is a piece that you like that you would say succeeds where this one falls short, in your opinion?

[pies]

a

[soliloquy]

"What an odd delusion, and how prevalent, that when some composition that one dislikes has been put on the dissecting table, one will dislike it less, or, in that singularly meaningless phrase, "understand it" better. The only result of this ghoulish process, pushed to the furthest lengths of boring absurdity in the analytical programme note, is to make one dislike it even more. It is like someone who, having introduced you to some antipatico person, shows you a radiograph of him, saying, "Oh you are ridiculously prejudiced against him! Just look at what a fine skeleton he has!"

- Kaikhosru Sorabji

You have to remember, Sorabji was an insecure, defensive prick.  He probably just said that because some critic made some comment about Gulistan or the fact that some fugue he wrote wasn't really a fugue, or maybe he was just trashing some french spectral piece.  Either way, I disagree with him.  The theory and compositional structure of a piece is important.  For instance, I think the Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata sounds like a boring, dense pile of trash, but I'm able to appreciate the craftsmanship.  I think the Carter Sonata sounds like a boring pile of trash, but would like to know if there's any reason I should appreciate the craftsmanship (or alternatively and slightly more scathingly, if there's any craftsmanship to appreciate).

Anyway, maybe Alistair can give us more insight into what prompted this quote from Sorabji.  But I'll bet you any sum of money that he was either defending some piece he wrote or vindicating his apathy for some atonal, modern piece by another composer.

[cygnusdei]

Genius always shines through regardless of genre. Sorabji is mostly too obtuse for my appreciation, but his etudes (no. 10 especially) do have masterful strokes. The Carter sonata ..... zzzz ....

[thracozaag]

the dry-as-dust Copland (to name just a handful of other mid-20th-century American piano sonatas).

  I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more regarding this statement; particularly when performed by the likes of a Kapell or Leo Smit.

koji

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

You have to remember, Sorabji was an insecure, defensive prick.

NO - YOU have to remember that if you so choose. No one else has to do anything of the sort; indeed, all anyone has to do is make up his/her own mind, thank you.

He probably just said that because some critic made some comment about Gulistan

Hardly likely, since it was never published in his lifetime, no one wrote to him negatively about any performance of it and the remark was made long before it was ever even performed at all in any case.

or the fact that some fugue he wrote wasn't really a fugue,

No...

or maybe he was just trashing some french spectral piece.

Even more unlikely, given when the remark was made!

Anyway, maybe Alistair can give us more insight into what prompted this quote from Sorabji.  But I'll bet you any sum of money that he was either defending some piece he wrote or vindicating his apathy for some atonal, modern piece by another composer.

OK, I'll take the money now, then. Thanks very much. Payment details can be found on our website. Perhaps I'll share a portion of it with Elliott Carter...

Best,

Alistair

[rob47]

AHINTWND!!!

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

AHINTWND!!!

That's what you see in Carter's Sonata, is it? Can't see it myself, I must admit...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

  I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more regarding this statement; particularly when performed by the likes of a Kapell or Leo Smit.

koji

OK, that's fine - and I should, of course, have added the phrase "in my view", or some such, when making it in the first place.

But what do YOU see in CARTER's Sonata?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A side note about Carter: He will outlive all of us.

Very possibly - although what is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Carter in that context is not just his great age (99 come December) but the fact that he is still composing - and quite prolifically at that; even Leo Ornstein, who survived to 108 or 109 (depending on which source you read) and Paul le Flem, (who made it to 103), had each given up writing by the time they reached the age that Carter has now.

If he's still writing in 15 months' time, maybe we should all club together and buy Elliott Carter a lightswitch for his next-but-one birthday...

Best,

Alistair

[thracozaag]

OK, that's fine - and I should, of coruse, hjave added the phrase "in my view", or some such, when making it in the first place.

But what do YOU see in CARTER's Sonata?

Best,

Alistair

  It never made much of an impression on me; whether that's the "fault" of the piece, or the performances, I can't say.  Prefer the obvious American sonata choices of Copland, Sessions, Kirchner, Ives, Griffes, and Barber, along with the lesser-known Persichetti, Ross Lee Finney, Lees, Albright and George Walker (particularly #2) to the Carter--but that's just me. 

koji

[ahinton]

  It never made much of an impression on me; whether that's the "fault" of the piece, or the performances, I can't say.  Prefer the obvious American sonata choices of Copland, Sessions, Kirchner, Ives, Griffes, and Barber, along with the lesser-known Persichetti, Ross Lee Finney, Lees, Albright and George Walker (particularly #2) to the Carter--but that's just me. 

koji

I cannot say in all honesty that I've yet heard a truly satisfactory performance of Carter's Piano Sonata but even that fact does not diminish the piece for me. Of the others you mention, I guess that the Ives Concord is probably the most widely known these days and the best of those that I've heard (which, I have to admit, does not include the Kirchner, Albright or Walker) seem to me to be Ives's first, the three Sessions works and the Barber which I think is one of that composer's best pieces of all. I had heard that Hamelin was to make a CD of the Sessions sonatas but this seems to have come to naught so far.

Best,

Alistair

[pita bread]

I think Paul Jacobs' recording of the Carter is phenomenal.

[ramseytheii]

  It never made much of an impression on me; whether that's the "fault" of the piece, or the performances, I can't say.  Prefer the obvious American sonata choices of Copland, Sessions, Kirchner, Ives, Griffes, and Barber, along with the lesser-known Persichetti, Ross Lee Finney, Lees, Albright and George Walker (particularly #2) to the Carter--but that's just me. 

koji

The best way to find out, for someone of your availability, is to play it, rather than listen.  maybe you've done it, but you didn't mention in this message.  If you have, I'd be interested to know your impressions that come from hands-on.  If not, do so and let us know!

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

I think Paul Jacobs' recording of the Carter is phenomenal.

I certainly think that it's the best I've heard, but it is, of course, from a long time ago. I think that, once the sonata is finally established itself as the core repertoire work that its contents so strongly suggest to me that it is, I think that we'll start to get some really searching and thoughful performances and recordings of it.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The best way to find out, for someone of your availability, is to play it, rather than listen.  maybe you've done it, but you didn't mention in this message.  If you have, I'd be interested to know your impressions that come from hands-on.  If not, do so and let us know!

Walter Ramsey

I'll second that request!

Incidentally, I tried some years ago to interest an American pianist (Donna Amato) and an adopted American one (Marc-André Hamelin) in preparing and presenting this sonata, but so far to no avail, sadly.

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

OK, I'll take the money now, then. Thanks very much. Payment details can be found on our website. Perhaps I'll share a portion of it with Elliott Carter...

The bet is still on.  I'll buy the Tantrik if I'm wrong.  All you've done is tell us when the quote was made (or that it was before/after this/that).  If you can show me to what specifically this quote is directed at, or irrefutibly (within reason) show me what sparked this quote.  If you find out and I'm right, you send me a free copy of the Tantrik.  Deal?


Remember, I'm saying that it was either:

A- him defending a work he wrote

or

B- trying to vindicate his dislike for a work.



Oh and sorry if my blunt phrasing offended you or any other Sorabjiophile.  I guess I could have taken the Alistair route and said something like:

You have to bare in mind, it is most likely that the context of that quote [insert my beliefs] considering that Sorabji, along with nearly every other composer out there (it being the stereotype, and for a reason I might add [insert anecdote]) was fairly defensive about assaults on his own beliefs about music, especially regarding his own works.

[ahinton]

The bet is still on.  I'll buy the Tantrik if I'm wrong.  All you've done is tell us when the quote was made (or that it was before/after this/that).  If you can show me to what specifically this quote is directed at, or irrefutibly (within reason) show me what sparked this quote.  If you find out and I'm right, you send me a free copy of the Tantrik.  Deal?

Remember, I'm saying that it was either:

A- him defending a work he wrote

or

B- trying to vindicate his dislike for a work.

I hear (or rather read) what you're saying (or rather writing). Let's examine the quote again.

What an odd delusion, and how prevalent, that when some composition that one dislikes has been put on the dissecting table, one will dislike it less, or, in that singularly meaningless phrase, "understand it" better. The only result of this ghoulish process, pushed to the furthest lengths of boring absurdity in the analytical programme note, is to make one dislike it even more. It is like someone who, having introduced you to some antipatico person, shows you a radiograph of him, saying, "Oh you are ridiculously prejudiced against him! Just look at what a fine skeleton he has!.

Now, since this does not at any point deal refer to - still less deal with - specifics (i.e. no composer, including himself, or work, including any of his own, are named therein), it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either your A or B applies here; the nearest that one can relistically get to denying that either is the case is that this short paragraph offers no evidence that he is either defending anything that he wrote or expressing dislike for any particular work by another composer - furthermore, there is nothing in the point he seeks to make in that paragraph that even suggests the need to defend any particular work of his or that any such work has been accused of something in the first place, nor does it seek to tell the reader anything about likes and dislikes per se - all that it does, in fact, is offer a view about how and to what extent analytical consideration alone may influence one's likes and dislikes. In so saying, I have done what you ask in telling you "to what specifically this quote is directed at(sic)" and show you "irrefutibly (within reason)...what sparked this quote"; OK, what I have written here may not be quite as "irrefutable" as you might have liked, but then it is hard to see how it could be so, really, given that, as I have already stated, Sorabji makes no specific reference in that paragraph to any particular work of his or of any other composer or to anyone's reactions to either.

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

I'm wanting the context of that quote.  Who was he talking to, what had transpired in the conversation before and after?


I doubt he just got up out of bed, shook his lover and said "take diction", then just went back to sleep after he had given his recitation.  Obviously if we can't find the context then we'll have to choose something else to gamble on   How good are you at poker?

[indutrial]

To go beyond the emotional/pleasure aspects of music and look for a more intellectual analysis is, well, pretty damn pretentious.  Always reminds me of analyzing poetry in high school.  And it also reminds me of this gem...

To dismiss the intellectual side of any art form as being pretentious is shallow-minded hippie idealism. While I agree that the emotional aspects of music are supremely important, I would never quickly decide not to like a piece purely based on things like not liking it the first time or having trouble staying interested in it.

A composer like Carter writes music that is nearly impossible to put a bead on while you're listening to it on headphones or witnessing a live performance. I would say that examining scores by him, as if I were performing it, lends another dimension to the music that can't be experienced simply by listening to it.

If music were all about immediate enjoyment, emotions and the intellectual/analytical trends didn't exist, we'd probably be listening to nothing but 19th century romantic music and punk rock. Rather than hang onto a quote like that verbal abortion by Sorabji (whose work I like but whose attitude and outlook I could care less for), I'll stick with striking a firm balance between the analytical and the emotional. I think it's more pretentious to not go beyond the emotional/pleasure side of listening, because in that case you're trying to make it seem like you can gauge artistic merit faster than a person who dares to not trust their own instincts.

[ahinton]

I'm wanting the context of that quote.  Who was he talking to, what had transpired in the conversation before and after?


I doubt he just got up out of bed, shook his lover and said "take diction", then just went back to sleep after he had given his recitation.  Obviously if we can't find the context then we'll have to choose something else to gamble on   How good are you at poker?

Yo seem hell-bent on "finding (or having found for you) a specific context for that quote. Why? (apart from the question of your own gambling offer!). I don't quite understand why it would be that Sorabji - or anyone else so minded, for that matter - couldn't just make a remark like that purely in the actual context in which he wrote it (by which I mean its own context rather than a necessarily wider one into which it might otherwise fit). What exactly is necessarily non-self-sufficient about it? Incidentally, he certainly never shook anyone and said "take diction", since he was perfectly capable of doing his own writing.

We do not have to gamble. If you recall, you originally offered me money if I could prove something - not an agreement to purchase something from us but a simple payment of money alone. Your introduction of an order for Sorabji's Tantrik Symphony has come about since and has not gone unnoticed as a reduction of your original proposal. I have since indicated that, whilst it is not possible to prove anything beyond doubt about the context of the paragraph concerned, there is nontheless no evidence whatsoever within it to support your suggestion that Sorabji was seeking either self-defence or vindication in writing as he did there.

Over to you...

And, in the meantime, back to Elliott C.'s Piano Sonata, s'il vous plaît...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

Well who was he talking to when he made this quote, and what were they talking about?  Or was it in a letter?  If it was in a letter, where's the rest of the letter?  Was it something he said for maybe a newspaper or said in an article or critique he wrote, and if so where is the rest of this article/critique?  It's just that the phrasing comes across as fairly scathing, so I strongly believe what I have proposed.  I'm just asking for you to show us what/where this quote was made.  Maybe it was in a book he wrote?  (did he even write one?)  It is this that will solve the riddle, and I doubt anyone here could find out more easily than you

[pianistimo]

despite some of his music seeming to be too modern to the ears even today - elliott carter was creative!  some of the things i would give him credit for would be the choice between a constant or changing tempo which he indicated a certain way.  all-interval hexichord (all 12 3 note chords included), all-interval tetrachords, all-interval 12-tone chords, character patterns (association of intervals, metronomic speeds, polyrhythms, and rhythm to indicate and characterize the dramatic personalities of individual instruments).  also, he defined the word 'chord' as meaning more than a harmonic chord.  he defined it as any collection of 3 or more pitches.

now - this modern sounding stuff isn't my cup of tea either.  basically because i feel without 'rest' when i listen to pieces like this.  it's like you are silently begging for the end to come.  i recently went to an organ recital and was expecting at least one western sounding TONAL piece - (however much i say i like organum and modal music too - as poulenc was prone to do).   however i was met with prelude and fugue in B major by marcel dupre (1886-1971), folk tune by percy whitlock (1903-1946) just alright - sorta dumb.  choral III in a minor (terribly long) cesar frank (1822-1890), hommage a frescobaldi by jean langlais (i did like the theme et variations, and fantasy by john weaver (born 1937).  to tell you the truth - i was glad when it was all over.  why?  because i wanted at least one piece that was restful melodically and rhythmically.  too much of anything is too much.

i could take the carter sonata within a program of other epochs of music - but, a completely contemporary program with nothing but?  it's too much for my ears (i think people can only handle so much of it). 

of course, some people don't like too much of offenbach either.  i happen to be very cheery about it.

btw, here is a book on elliott carter by david schiff.  it's interesting:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3BlI21fU8_EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=elliott+carter+sonata&ots=Y4TZPkBcd6&sig=AffCxi2P1aWQRVfrDRW8lNXGlgw#PPP1,M1