What do you see in the Carter Sonata?

[ramseytheii]

polyrhythms (born 1937) despite some of his music seeming toertain way.  all-interval hexichord (all 12 3 note chords included), all-inte be too modern to the eelliott carterars even today -  was creative!  some of the things i would give d fugue in B major by marcel dupre (1886-1971), folk tune by percy whitlock (1906) just alright - s. terribly lorta dumb choral I3-194II in a minor (ong) cesar frank (1822-anglai1890), hommage a i by jean frescobaldls (i did like the theme et varis, and fantasy by john weaver .  to tell you the truth for would be the choice- i was glad whvals, metren itanging tempo  was all over.  why?  because i wanted at least one phim credit  betweent 2-tone choor chwhicate ich he in-intl 1rds, character patterns (association of interonomic speeds, , and melodi rhythervam to indand characterize the dramaooation mutic persities  isn't my ccently weoonalual instrf individuments).  also, he d the woord' as meaning more than a harf tea either.  basitemporacally because i feel without 'rest' when i liste modal n to pieces ke organum andmusicmonic chord.  he defined it any cdicated a crval tetrachords, allollection of 3 or ermore pitcONhes.
nd rhyt
now - this modern sounding stuffnt to an organ recital and was expecting at least one westn sounding TAL piece - (however much i say i lin a constaece that was restfulcally ahmically.  tch of anything is toup o too - as poulenc was prrd 'chone tefas inedo do).   however i was met with prelude anilike this.  it's like you tly begging for the end to come.  i reo much.
are silen
i could take the carter sonata within a proWQRVfrDRW8lNXGgram of other epochs of music - but, a colgw#PPP1,M1mpletely conr=Y4TZPky program with nothing but?  it's too?hl=en&lr=&id=3BlI21fU8_EC&oi= much for my ears (i think people can only handle so much of it). 

of course, sottp://me people don't like R6&dq=elliotttoo much of offenbach either.  i happen to be very cheery about it.

botsBcdxi2Ptw, here is &pga book on elliott carter 6&sig=AffCby david schiff.  it's interestirter+sonata&ng:
hbooks.google.com/booksfnd=P+ca1a

Yes.... I could agree with that!

Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

Zcsckst io soienc buekmklkjt me!    Spekoiystlkcy, sltiek, wioyt -- aujk oi!

Now, you're going too far.  Carter was NOT Sorabji's lover.

[cmg]

.

[ahinton]

I suppose that there's no chance of this "discussion" returning to the subject of Carter's Piano Sonata, is there?

No, I thought not.

Ah, well...

Rather than hog this thread for the time being, may I respectfully invite pies to cite the source of the Sorabji quote that he made earlier, for the satisfaction of soliloquy? In the meantime, I offer a related quote from him (Sorabji, that is - not soliloquy), as follows:

"It is high time to declare roundly that all that pseudo-anatomical nonsense of the text-books and the analytical programme is so much pernicious and noxious rubbish, confusing the issues and darkening counsel. It distracts attention from what matters - the music - to subordinate and subsidiary matters that, in the totality of the music, are as germane thereto as a man's skeleton to the whole of him".

OK - so what's the source of this one? Well, I will tell you that is the second of Sorabji's two books of collected essays, entitled Mi Contra Fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician (Porcupine Press, London, 1947) and it appears on page 15 in chapter 1 - Introito. I can confirm that this passage is not motivated by any intent to defend or to vilify a work of his own or of anyone else, nor "because some critic made some comment about Gulistan" (which would have been difficult, since that piece had not been performed at the time of the book's publication), nor because anyone had claimed "that some fugue he wrote wasn't really a fugue", nor in the spirit of "trashing some french spectral piece" (especially given that the book was published well before such a movement arose).

I offer this merely as an example. Over to you, pies. In the meantime, one thing I will confirm is that neither of these Sorabji quotations was motivated by a desire to undermine a piece that was brand new at the time the aforementioned book was published - that's to say Carter's Piano Sonata (just thought I'd mention that en passant - this thread was once about that piece, after all - or so I understood...)

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[pianistimo]

if that was the sole quoted source, i'd say that you should be living in a castle.  1958.  what did you have to do to find it?  and, do you think sorabji said this so that noone would bother analyzing his arm-stuck-to-forehead type of composition?  i mean - if you play 'in the hothouse' you can literally throw all the pages up in the air and rearrange them and it sounds just fine to most ears.  i think he composed a page or so at a time - and preferred to 'elliot carter' segments.  you can literally see different 'segments' as though you feel time passing - but not particularly in a way that you can say 'now, we are coming to the climax.'  it's more like 3rd time around the ferris wheel - although the ride gets bumpier as you go - and you fall out from 5 stories high and end up in pain.  was he a pianist or a contortionist?

no matter.  i still like alistair for defending him - although i'm not sure what for.  maybe to be unique.  unique is certainly there.  creative.  i LOVE some of the chords.  but, pieces don't stand alone on chords do they?  also, his pieces provide no hiding places.  it's like you're walking out into a crowd naked and then suddenly realize it's going to be a show all about their minds.  what will the audience do?  it's not really about the music is it?  what does one expect an audience to do with this kind of music?  it's all about - who perceives who is 'sophisticated enough.'   as i see it, they should walk out after their tolerance level reaches  max or their heart starts pumping blood in reverse. 

ps - alistair - if jonathan powell was playing - i would not walk out.  but i would definately be more enthused about your pieces and chopin's polonaise-fantasy.  as i see - pianists should always be careful and not program an entire recital of pieces of questionable theories.  ie - a chord is any three notes.  i think sorabji was being sort of sarcastic about piano performance, myself.  'i dare you to play this and not miss a note....'

[cmg]

 
also, his pieces provide no hiding places.  it's like you're walking out into a crowd naked and then suddenly realize it's going to be a show all about their minds.  what will the audience do?  it's not really about the music is it?  what does one expect an audience to do with this kind of music?  it's all about - who perceives who is 'sophisticated enough.'   as i see it, they should walk out after their tolerance level reaches  max or their heart starts pumping blood in reverse. 

ps - alistair - if jonathan powell was playing - i would not walk out.  but i would definately be more enthused about your pieces and chopin's polonaise-fantasy.  as i see - pianists should always be careful and not program an entire recital of pieces of questionable theories.  ie - a chord is any three notes.  i think sorabji was being sort of sarcastic about piano performance, myself.  'i dare you to play this and not miss a note....'

Hmm.  Well, like any innovator, Sorabji can be an acquired taste for many.  The complexities he summons up, I think, are not for show.  I think his musical mind (genius) just went there.  As Beethoven's did with "The Hammerklavier." 

His sound-world is like no other.  He's a unique voice.  Like the voice of a great singer:  they are great for many reasons but aren't really remembered if they sound like everyone else.  Distinctive.  Yes.  That's Sorabji.  Memorable.     

[ahinton]

if that was the sole quoted source, i'd say that you should be living in a castle.  1958.  what did you have to do to find it?

Who should be? Sorabji, incidentally, did not live in one, despite the nonsense that years ago used to infect the entry on him in successive editions of your wonderful American publication Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians; "Corfe Castle" is the name of the village where he lived from the early 1950s until the mid 1980s.

and, do you think sorabji said this so that noone would bother analyzing his arm-stuck-to-forehead type of composition?

As I mentioned previously, he was not specifically talking about his own music or anyone else in particular's music here. I presume that you do not compose; if you did, you'd very soon realise that it's impossible to do so with your are stuck to your forehead.

i mean - if you play 'in the hothouse' you can literally throw all the pages up in the air and rearrange them and it sounds just fine to most ears.

You're the only person that's ever played that piece - which is one of Sorabji's earliest and most easily assimilable piano works - that's ever made such a bizarre comment; you must consort with some pretty strange ears...

i think he composed a page or so at a time - and preferred to 'elliot carter' segments.  you can literally see different 'segments' as though you feel time passing - but not particularly in a way that you can say 'now, we are coming to the climax.'  it's more like 3rd time around the ferris wheel - although the ride gets bumpier as you go - and you fall out from 5 stories high and end up in pain.  was he a pianist or a contortionist?

A pianist. Only those who attempt to play or compose with their ars stuck to their foreheads are contortionists. From what you write, this music seems not to be for you, Susan! And DO please stop cutting "t" off "Elliott" (you must be the thousandth person to do that to him!).

no matter.  i still like alistair for defending him - although i'm not sure what for.

I don't "defend" him. I draw attention to him and his work, but that's not the same thing.

maybe to be unique.  unique is certainly there.  creative.  i LOVE some of the chords.  but, pieces don't stand alone on chords do they?

No - and his don't do so or try to do so either.

also, his pieces provide no hiding places.  it's like you're walking out into a crowd naked and then suddenly realize it's going to be a show all about their minds.  what will the audience do?  it's not really about the music is it?  what does one expect an audience to do with this kind of music?  it's all about - who perceives who is 'sophisticated enough.'   as i see it, they should walk out after their tolerance level reaches  max or their heart starts pumping blood in reverse. 

I just cannot recognise what it is that prompts you to respond to that music in this way - but then I don't know what Sorabji you've listened to or tried to play apart from In the Hothouse.

ps - alistair - if jonathan powell was playing - i would not walk out.  but i would definately be more enthused about your pieces and chopin's polonaise-fantasy.  as i see - pianists should always be careful and not program an entire recital of pieces of questionable theories.  ie - a chord is any three notes.  i think sorabji was being sort of sarcastic about piano performance, myself.  'i dare you to play this and not miss a note....'

Well, thanks for the compliment, but I fear that you've really gotten quite the wrong end of the stick about what motivated Sorabji to write in the way that he did! You'll nevertheless go a long way to find it played as well as Jonathan does, though (although maybe you should also try to get the CD of Fredrik Ullén playing the first 25 of Sorabji's 100 Transcendental Studies - it's on the BIS label - some very fine playing there, too).

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i understand sorabji better based on a newer member's mention of miles davis.  to understand where a composer is coming from is certainly helpful.  perhaps, as alistair and cmg indicate - it is an aquired taste.  and, one where you do leave a certain portion of your brain outside.  i mean, with jazz you just sit and listen and enjoy and don't have any expectations that a form will be followed specifically or that harmonies HAVe to be a certain way. 

[indutrial]

i understand sorabji better based on a newer member's mention of miles davis.  to understand where a composer is coming from is certainly helpful.  perhaps, as alistair and cmg indicate - it is an aquired taste.  and, one where you do leave a certain portion of your brain outside.  i mean, with jazz you just sit and listen and enjoy and don't have any expectations that a form will be followed specifically or that harmonies HAVe to be a certain way. 

I've always found that approaching Sorabji's work in the same way you would analyze bits and pieces of jazz/free improv piano playing by someone like Keith Jarrett or Alexander Schlippenbach (spelling?) is just about as rewarding as looking at it from a more stingy classical theory approach. Same with numerous other twentieth century composers like Tansman, Carter, Wuorinen, and Rzewski.

I've also always found the idea of composition as "captured improvisation" an interesting idea. Scelsi used to pay people to transcribe his improvisted recordings into notation, and I'm pretty sure this is how some of his piano literature came to be. I'm not sure if he edited the works after the initial notation, but the thrust of the approach gives a lot of clout to the original, spontaneous ideas.

I know that, at some point, somebody transcribed Jarrett's Koln Concert, which is one of his more famous solo recordings and I've always thought about transcribing other segments of his improvised output, perhaps some of his Book of Ways release, where he improvs on a clavichord for two discs.

Listening to Sorabji with the expectation of being able to scope out the piece's form and function is a bit ridiculous. If I went to see a performance of something like the Opus Clavicembalisticum or any of the Sonatas, I would be focused on experiencing the energy and aura of the piece and the performer. The compositional elements can be scrutinized later in the company of a CD player, a score, and a lot of caffeine and blank paper.

[ahinton]

Come on, folks - let's get back to Elliott Carter's Piano Sonata...

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[pianistimo]

the work does not have 'material' but rather piano sonorities.  hmmm.  ok.  *attempt to be open-minded (barfs behind closed doors).

[indutrial]

  Sorry I ventured off topic, but I figured that this thread had long since become the hip place to discuss all things that are not Carter-related, especially things that bear no relation to his sonata.

Summary of this thread: Soliloquy (not surprisingly) dislikes a piece because it doesn't succeed at redefining spacetime with its virtuosity, otherworldly theory, or avant-garde esotericism and he's compelled to lead the best and brightest of the forum into a solutionless rat-maze that doesn't change or enlighten anyone's outlook on anything and further crystalizes some people's preconceived opinions. Decent posts are made here and there but ultimately shouted out by the tiredly puerile and pretentious banterings that too many of this forum's members can't seem to resist indulging themselves with at every turn. Same old bull5hit around here as always. And yes, maybe my thread right here is more of the same (the pretentious idealist bitching about the thread itself), but it's beyond the point where I really give a damn anymore.

[ahinton]

Sorry I ventured off topic, but I figured that this thread had long since become the hip place to discuss all things that are not Carter-related, especially things that bear no relation to his sonata.

Sadly true.

Summary of this thread: Soliloquy (not surprisingly) dislikes a piece because it doesn't succeed at redefining spacetime with its virtuosity, otherworldly theory, or avant-garde esotericism and he's compelled to lead the best and brightest of the forum into a solutionless rat-maze that doesn't change or enlighten anyone's outlook on anything and further crystalizes some people's preconceived opinions. Decent posts are made here and there but ultimately shouted out by the tiredly puerile and pretentious banterings that too many of this forum's members can't seem to resist indulging themselves with at every turn. Same old bull5hit around here as always. And yes, maybe my thread right here is more of the same (the pretentious idealist bitching about the thread itself), but it's beyond the point where I really give a damn anymore.

Sadly again, it would be hard to argue convincingly against this summary, although I'm not gong as far as you in suggesting the particular reasons why soliloquy doesn't care for Carter's Piano Sonata (not that I'm arguing with your conclusion on this either, mind). Perhaps the best thing about this thread is that we can be pretty certain that it will not have come to the attention of Elliott C himself, even if for no other reason than that he's probably far too busy writing mew pieces.

Anyway, Carter's Piano Sonata is a classic of its time as has stood the test of time very well.

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[rob47]

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

Best,

Alistair

AHINTWND!!!1! refers to someone  being "owned or 'pwned' by Alistair Hinton" i thought that was pretty straightforward.

what the hell is a Carter's Sonata?

[ahinton]

AHINTWND!!!1! refers to someone  being "owned or 'pwned' by Alistair Hinton" i thought that was pretty straightforward.

Well, thanks for the explanation, although the reason for the term is unclear, since I own no one.

What the hell is a Carter's Sonata?

If you need to ask the question...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

Sorry I ventured off topic, but I figured that this thread had long since become the hip place to discuss all things that are not Carter-related, especially things that bear no relation to his sonata.

Summary of this thread: Soliloquy (not surprisingly) dislikes a piece because it doesn't succeed at redefining spacetime with its virtuosity, otherworldly theory, or avant-garde esotericism and he's compelled to lead the best and brightest of the forum into a solutionless rat-maze that doesn't change or enlighten anyone's outlook on anything and further crystalizes some people's preconceived opinions. Decent posts are made here and there but ultimately shouted out by the tiredly puerile and pretentious banterings that too many of this forum's members can't seem to resist indulging themselves with at every turn. Same old bull5hit around here as always. And yes, maybe my thread right here is more of the same (the pretentious idealist bitching about the thread itself), but it's beyond the point where I really give a damn anymore.

Do you like Liszt's Bagatelle sans Tonalitie?  If not, it's because it doesn't succeed at redefining spacetime with its virtuosity, otherworldly theory, or avant-garde esotericism.


Not because it's boring and pointless.

[ahinton]

Do you like Liszt's Bagatelle sans Tonalitie?  If not, it's because it doesn't succeed at redefining spacetime with its virtuosity, otherworldly theory, or avant-garde esotericism.

There's nothing quite like telling people what their opinions - and/or their reasons for having those opinions - are, is there?!

Not because it's boring and pointless.

And your point here (assuming you to have one) is...?

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

There's nothing quite like telling people what their opinions - and/or their reasons for having those opinions - are, is there?!
And your point here (assuming you to have one) is...?

Best,

Alistair

I thought my point was fairly clear, Alistair, particularly considering your intellect.


My point was quite obviously that the assertion that I dislike a piece for only the reasons that he listed is ludicrous.

[ahinton]

I thought my point was fairly clear, Alistair, particularly considering your intellect.


My point was quite obviously that the assertion that I dislike a piece for only the reasons that he listed is ludicrous.

That's exactly what I thought myself, but I thought it better to come from you personally. I wouldn't have described that conclusion as "ludicrous", although at the same time I would not necessarily have reached such a conclusion either. As you noticed, I accepted that Carter's Piano Sonata just doesn;t do anything for you and, although I take a quite different view of it, I accept that you have your personal reaction to the piece and that's that.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

My point was quite obviously that the assertion that I dislike a piece for only the reasons that he listed is ludicrous.

Oh my! I was being sarcastic and thinking of that somewhat intimidating list of (mostly) heavily avant-garde pieces you've posted in other forums. In my own defense, I would at least say that your standards of excellence are a bit higher (perhaps a tad loftier too) than the average poster here. You seem a lot quicker to the holster about calling a piece "boring," "pointless," or "trash."

I don't think that a piece like the Bagatelle Sans Tonalite is exactly pointless. Perhaps not as important or groundbreaking as some pieces, but not outright pointless. Elevator muzak may seem pointless to every musician on the planet, but it's still there, so it obviously has some point, however small and insignificant. You're just way too quick to pass judgment of things when you haven't really given me any palpable reason to believe that you can wield that kind of critical authority.