Why such negativity about Sorabji?

[ahinton]

Meaning?

Quite simply that there is no universally agreed definitional standard for "genius" - a fact of which I had presumed you already to be aware, especially by reason of your question "how so?".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A lot of Sorabji's writings are not very friendly to your ears

Whose ears?

and offers little interest to those who are not musicians or play the piano.

Then why is that audiences at public performanes of his music do not consist entirely of such people?

There are many of his pieces which really should be played more like his pastiche on 'The Song of India', from Korsakov's Sadako Opera.

It's Sadko, actually - and this is merely a small transcription, appealing as it is.

The OC is tollerable only in small amounts

To you, perhaps - evidently not to those who have attended public performances of the work or spent a not inconsiderable sum of money in purchasing one of the complete recordings.

Much of Sorabji's music has to be played by yourself since there are no existing public recordings. So a lot of peoples opinions are based on a small window that have been presented in recordings.

It's a good thing that this isn't true, for few people would be able to do that, but I wonder if you are aware of just how many Sorabji recordings there are? I agree that much remains to be recorded, but there is already a substantial amount of recorded music out there, in some cases more than one recording of the same work. The Altarus label has the lion's share of these, although there's more on other labels, so why not start by checking their website at www.altarusrecords.com to see for yourself.

Sorabji makes me think of Bach on acid.

I am lost in idle wonder at the prospect of what Bach would have thought - and if Gulistan or Le Jardin Parfumé or Concerto per suonare da ma solo etc. really make you think of that, then I am also tempted to wonder what you think of Bach - and/or acid...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

It is my opinions, this doesnt mean its a universal truth, just like your own opinions are not universally true I never thought that a discussion forum was about deconstructing what others say. Still Ahinton u are a person who enjoys to be supremely accurate in what you say, unfortunately not everyone are as prim and proper as urself I am for one not a prim and proper person in my thoughts or my words, I say what I want to say i don't have to be careful or prepared. Opinions are a wonder to share I wish i knew more about you instead of your comments on what others say. Oh and i don't like your assumptions on me, i only assume what the general says not a particular person. You might think you know about an individual you never know.

[ahinton]

It is my opinions, this doesnt mean its a universal truth, just like your own opinions are not universally true

I accept and agree with all of that and have not suggested otherwise; instead, however, I have dealt with facts alone and asked you som questions based upon those facts without seeking to impugn your opinions, whether or not I may happen to agree with some of them.

I never thought that a discussion forum was about deconstructing what others say.

My response to you was not an attempt at "deconstruction", although since this is, as you rightly say, a "discussion forum", this allows room for one writer to disagree with another who has made either incorret or unsubstantiated statements. To be specific, I called into question your remarks on (a) what you meant by the pronoun "your" in the statement that "a lot of Sorabji's writings are not very friendly to your ears" (i.e. "whose ears?") and (b) that Sorabji's music "offers little interest to those who are not musicians or play the piano" by asking you why audiences for it do not therefore consist entirely of such people, as it is known they don't.

Still Ahinton u are a person who enjoys to be supremely accurate in what you say, unfortunately not everyone are as prim and proper as urself

I do indeed strive for accuracy, although I make no claims to be 100% successful in this, but I am certainly far from "prim and proper" as you suggest!

I am for one not a prim and proper person in my thoughts or my words, I say what I want to say i don't have to be careful or prepared. Opinions are a wonder to share

Indeed - and no one here is denying youyour opinions or discouraging you from holding and expressing them but, as you can hopefully see above, what you wrote were not personal opinions but things presented as though statements of fact; it is always important to distinguish between the two when doing either, so that people can tell from what you write whether you are expressing a personal opinion or presenting what looks to be a statement of fact.

I wish i knew more about you instead of your comments on what others say. Oh and i don't like your assumptions on me, i only assume what the general says not a particular person. You might think you know about an individual you never know.

I have made no assumptions about you and do not claim to know you, so you need have no fear about that!

Anyway, let's get back to the thread topic...

Best,

Alistair

[bachundrach]

Saith lostinidlewonder---

*I don't have to be careful or prepared*

Ummmmmmm - Let's carefully consider that proposition.  We can all agree that opinions are a wonder, however, those opinions become even more valid and interesting if one is careful and/or prepared.   When one is careful and/or prepared one might elicit many more interesting thoughts from the readership on any given forum and you also show yourself to be intelligent and that you respect yourself and what you say. 

One can and should try to always work on the message one is trying to deliver - it can be a tough slog sometimes.  Some of us have it easy, some of us not so.  I know I fail miserably sometimes, but I aim to strive for to make intelligent statements and/or questions.

Cheers

[webern78]

Quite simply that there is no universally agreed definitional standard for "genius"

You don't need a definitional standard in order to recognize and appreciate genius, nor should anybody feel compelled to coin such a standard merely to express his feelings regarding a particular artist. It's an impossible expectation, particularly considering each great work of art is so unique one would have to develop a different definition every time.

Now, i personally don't consider Sorabji to be a genius, not from what i heard so far, and i'm curious to know why would anybody even make such a claim. That his pianism as been among the most 'significant' in this past century means squad to me. I don't even consider Liszt to be a genius, what makes Sorabji special?

Whatever your personal definition, i think we can all agree that there is more to genius than that, nay?

[lostinidlewonder]

Wow people have a lot of time to waste trying to make themselves heard lol

[ahinton]

You don't need a definitional standard in order to recognize and appreciate genius, nor should anybody feel compelled to coin such a standard merely to express his feelings regarding a particular artist. It's an impossible expectation, particularly considering each great work of art is so unique one would have to develop a different definition every time.

Now, i personally don't consider Sorabji to be a genius, not from what i heard so far, and i'm curious to know why would anybody even make such a claim. That his pianism as been among the most 'significant' in this past century means squad to me. I don't even consider Liszt to be a genius, what makes Sorabji special?

Whatever your personal definition, i think we can all agree that there is more to genius than that, nay?

I would have thought that the very fact that you do not consider Liszt or Sorabji to be a "genius" while others do is ample demonstration of the point that I made, wouldn't you? Perhaps you wouldn't. Ah, well...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Wow people have a lot of time to waste trying to make themselves heard lol

This would indeed appear to be the case. Not to worry - at least Webern's works are almost all short...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Saith lostinidlewonder---

*I don't have to be careful or prepared*

If i wanted to be completely precise in what I say I would have to write at least 2 paragraphs per sentence I write to cover every single logical flawl that people might try to find out in my sentences. Thus I only say GENERAL things i never talk about an INDIVIDUAL because to tell you the truth all of you here are pretty much faceless/unknown people to me. And when I get people disagreeing with my generalisations it really makes me wonder what the heck they are trying to prove? It is just a waste of time trying to be precise with everything you say, if you do so you will never get anywhere IN MY MIND. FOR ME it works NOT TO BE PRECISE WITH EVERYTHING to make all the PRECISE people happy. 99% of people get what I say anyway, its the only 1% who think too much and cant get out of their own head to listen to what others have to say or think. Its not about RIGHT or WRONG but YOU YOURSELF finding answers, you do that by weight up peoples opinions in your OWN HEAD, not saying Oh i disagree you must be wrong, lets demonstrate why you are wrong... or right... its just useless, let there just be opinions, let the RIGHT AND WRONG remain in your own head, where the person most interested in that aspect of discussion remains.

Generally no one who listens to Sorabji enjoys it, generally whoever listens to his music will quicky turn it off and put something else on. Now for the individuals who like Sorabji this might make you upset but its the truth. Even though I thorougly enjoy Sorabji's music and do actually play through his music weekly I would NEVER perform much of what he has written, why? Because most people will not like it, that is the truth and anyone who says it isn't are delusional or surround themselves with people who like Sorabji, either way you are not of the norm if you like Sorabji. I speak for Australians, I dont know the ears of other countries but I doubt its much different. No need to try to disprove what I say now because it is the truth, go out on the street in a shoppin mall and ask random people what they think of Sorabji, the truth will hurt you. THey'll shrug their shoulders at you, and if you get a sense of superiority that you know a composer someone doesn't well WELL DONE FOR YOU!

[indutrial]

Being a non-pianist, studying bits and pieces of Sorabji's gi-normous piano scores presents loads of interesting ideas within his free-tonal style. I can certainly agree that it is NOT music for everybody, but that also goes for tons of composers who were way more economical about their pieces' lengths and amount of thematic material. Many of the so-called "neo-classical" composers like Hindemith, Auric, Absil, and Tansman face a similar apathy despite the fact that they composed tons of interesting music for numerous instrumental settings, including lots of solo piano pieces. Like Sorabji's sonatas, Tansman's five excellent sonatas have all been recorded to CD once and are almost impossible to find at the local record store (unless you live in Warsaw).

I would say that, by and large, classical music from the 20th century is completely unrelated to average citizens. The average person I know can barely name the classical pieces that they have available as cell phone rings and if you ask them what pieces they like, you're lucky to hear a name drop as esoteric as Mozart or *gasp* Bach. Barely anyone knows who Liszt is and I'm certain that most of them would be surprised to know that piano music (besides Yanni) existed at all in the 20th century.

Even music students are, on average, completely oblivious to the music from the past 100 years. I have never met a single conservatory kid my age who knew anything about Andre Jolivet, Tansman, Sorabji, Gorecki, any of the Danish composers I like, or anybody Russian who is not Shostakovich or Prokofiev. In America, they know Gershwin, Copland, all of the minimalists, John Cage, maybe Morton Feldman (if they are from NYC), maybe Elliott Carter (just because he's American), and maybe an esoteric composer here and there whose work their professor assigned them at one point.

Sorabji is obviously never going to be popular music. I would say that his work is important and it annoys me when pretentious students and pundits give it short shrift due to the lengthiness of the pieces or because it's not as "experimental" or "avant-garde" as the work of other composers who also have zero public fan base but attract the "more-edgy-than-thou" pretentiousness cliques (Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, electronic music composers). I certainly hope that Sorabji's work continues to achieve availibility and publicity, however esoteric and minor, because we live in an age where it is very easy for a dead composer's work to rot away, whether because of neglect, idiotic copyright entanglements, or just because there is loads of music and nobody willing to study it or publish it.

I hope everything stays well with the Sorabji Archive and the next 3-5 years sees the typesetting of Sequencia Cyclia, Sonata V, and the Symphonic Variations.

I also hope that the other composers I mentioned from the 20th century won't be completely forgotten.

[bachundrach]

*You are not of the norm if you like Sorabji*

When I began my journey in the field of music JS Bach was all I listened to and played - they said I was not of the norm.  Then Rachmaninoff got added and they still said I was not of the norm.   Well, phooey on them!!!!!!!  Now with Sorabji as another composer whose works I consider myself familiar with, I'm still not of the norm - well golly gee, thank Our Divine Creator that the world does not revolve around the navel-gazing and nattering nabobs whose only classical musical experience is limited to Ravel's *Bolero* and Pachelbel's *Canon*. 

Lostinidlewonder - maybe thou dost engage in musical philistinism i.e. appeal to the lowest common denominator - and this I share in utmost respect to you.  Have you listened to Havergal Brian's *Gothic Symphony*?  It will turn your world upside down and inside out.

Please, dear sir,  come again with some more flesh on your bones.

Humbly yours,

B&R

[ahinton]

If i wanted to be completely precise in what I say I would have to write at least 2 paragraphs per sentence I write to cover every single logical flawl that people might try to find out in my sentences. Thus I only say GENERAL things i never talk about an INDIVIDUAL because to tell you the truth all of you here are pretty much faceless/unknown people to me. And when I get people disagreeing with my generalisations it really makes me wonder what the heck they are trying to prove? It is just a waste of time trying to be precise with everything you say, if you do so you will never get anywhere IN MY MIND. FOR ME it works NOT TO BE PRECISE WITH EVERYTHING to make all the PRECISE people happy. 99% of people get what I say anyway, its the only 1% who think too much and cant get out of their own head to listen to what others have to say or think. Its not about RIGHT or WRONG but YOU YOURSELF finding answers, you do that by weight up peoples opinions in your OWN HEAD, not saying Oh i disagree you must be wrong, lets demonstrate why you are wrong... or right... its just useless, let there just be opinions, let the RIGHT AND WRONG remain in your own head, where the person most interested in that aspect of discussion remains.

Blah, blah and more blah. Of course there are things where personal opinions are involved that cannot admit of the kind of precision on which all can agree, but then it is still good to see opinions expressed with precision and clarity, whether or not one may happen to agree with them. But I wasn't talking about opinions - yours or anyone else's - when questioning why it is that people who attend Sorabji concerts don't walk out of them, or why you should assume that all but small doses of OC are intolerable to everyone because they are to you, etc.; I was referring specifically to facts. I attended a mammoth programme in Montpellier, France a couple of years ago in which Jonathan Powell played four Sorabji works - Sonata 1 (27') and Gulistan (35') - interval - Il Grido del Gallino d'Oro (world première - 85') - interval - Concerto per suonare da me solo (63'); almost everyone stayed to the end, Jonathan held their concentration magnificently and the total duration of the event was well in excess of four hours - yet the audience, far from being a côterie of Sorabjiphiles, consisted almost entirely of people who had never previously heard a note of Sorabji's music. Now even I would be the first to admit that such an ambitious programme might have proved too much, especially for an audience not already versed in this repertoire, yet the facts proved otherwise.

Generally no one who listens to Sorabji enjoys it, generally whoever listens to his music will quicky turn it off and put something else on. Now for the individuals who like Sorabji this might make you upset but its the truth.

And the source of your evidence is...?

Even though I thorougly enjoy Sorabji's music and do actually play through his music weekly I would NEVER perform much of what he has written, why? Because most people will not like it, that is the truth and anyone who says it isn't are delusional or surround themselves with people who like Sorabji, either way you are not of the norm if you like Sorabji.

Or Chopin, or Brahms, or Beethoven, or Bach, or Debussy...

I speak for Australians, I dont know the ears of other countries but I doubt its much different. No need to try to disprove what I say now because it is the truth, go out on the street in a shoppin mall and ask random people what they think of Sorabji, the truth will hurt you. THey'll shrug their shoulders at you, and if you get a sense of superiority that you know a composer someone doesn't well WELL DONE FOR YOU!

And would you not expect to get pretty much the same reaction if you did the same but substituted the name Percy Grainger or Peter Sculthorpe? No - this "truth" (on the validity of which you seem to be as hooked as pianistimo on some of her Biblical "truths" is not going to "hurt" anyone with realistic expectations, but then, as I stated, ask the average person at random about any major figure in "classical" music and you'll get a lot of blank faces; of course the name Sorabji will attract more blank faces than that of Beethoven, but then so would thousands more composers whose names and work are considerably less well known than those of Beethoven.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Like Sorabji's sonatas, Tansman's five excellent sonatas have all been recorded to CD once and are almost impossible to find at the local record store (unless you live in Warsaw).

Not quite true in two particulars. Of Sorabji's six piano sonatas (including the unnumbered one from 1917), only four (nos. 1 - 4) have so far been recorded and five have been performed (nos. 0 - 4); of the recorded ones, no. 3 has not yet been released but nos. 1, 2 and 4 are easily available - we supply them from here, they are available to order anywhere and they can be got via www.recordsinternational.com. - OK, they won't be at the local record store, but then in view of the sheer volume of new CDs coming onto the market and those like the Altarus ones (and many from BIS and Hyperion, for example) which mostly remain available even after many years, the local record store will simply not have the ever-expanding space necessary to continue to stock everything.

I would say that, by and large, classical music from the 20th century is completely unrelated to average citizens. The average person I know can barely name the classical pieces that they have available as cell phone rings and if you ask them what pieces they like, you're lucky to hear a name drop as esoteric as Mozart or *gasp* Bach. Barely anyone knows who Liszt is and I'm certain that most of them would be surprised to know that piano music (besides Yanni) existed at all in the 20th century.

Sadly true...

Even music students are, on average, completely oblivious to the music from the past 100 years. I have never met a single conservatory kid my age who knew anything about Andre Jolivet, Tansman, Sorabji, Gorecki, any of the Danish composers I like, or anybody Russian who is not Shostakovich or Prokofiev. In America, they know Gershwin, Copland, all of the minimalists, John Cage, maybe Morton Feldman (if they are from NYC), maybe Elliott Carter (just because he's American), and maybe an esoteric composer here and there whose work their professor assigned them at one point.

Also sadly true of many (though not all) such people...

Sorabji is obviously never going to be popular music. I would say that his work is important and it annoys me when pretentious students and pundits give it short shrift due to the lengthiness of the pieces or because it's not as "experimental" or "avant-garde" as the work of other composers who also have zero public fan base but attract the "more-edgy-than-thou" pretentiousness cliques (Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, electronic music composers). I certainly hope that Sorabji's work continues to achieve availibility and publicity, however esoteric and minor, because we live in an age where it is very easy for a dead composer's work to rot away, whether because of neglect, idiotic copyright entanglements, or just because there is loads of music and nobody willing to study it or publish it.

Naturally, I welcome these statements; I would add, however, that most of Sorabji's works are not of unusual length in any case.

I hope everything stays well with the Sorabji Archive and the next 3-5 years sees the typesetting of Sequencia Cyclia, Sonata V, and the Symphonic Variations.

Thank you very much. Editing of Sequentia Cyclica and Sonata V was to have been undertaken by Charles Hopkins, but serious illness prevented him from getting into these projects and, as you may know, he died after a long battle with cancer less than two months ago aged only 55. Jonathan Powell began to edit Sequentia Cyclica but had to abandon it due to the time constraints of his other musical acitivities and it is now being edited by Alexander Abercrombie; it's about one-third done now, as I understand. Sonata V has been requested for editing by someone in Brazil but this has only just happened, so I do not yet know how that will work out. No news re Symphonic Variations yet, although someone in Italy is editing the composer's version of that work for piano and orchestra and I believe that some 100 pages of this have so far been typeset.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

I apologize for being unclear. What I was trying to state was that, like the sonatas of Sorabji that have been recorded (1-4, 3 unreleased); Tansman's recorded sonatas (1-5) have only been recorded once a piece. I certainly know that Sorabji's Sonata 5 is not yet available and I look forward to it's possible future recording with great interest. The point I was making is that the recorded legacy of Tansman and Sorabji is nearly paper thin, as opposed to someone like Liszt, whose Sonata has been recorded dozens of times. Even Szymanowski's sonatas have been tackled by a handful of different pianists.

Considering the challenge of learning a Sorabji piece, it is understandable that the those pieces are rarely performed or recorded. Leaning a 3-4 hour piece is certainly an enormous commitment. But they still should be more widely known, even if people are just studying the pieces and not trying to tackle them in the concert hall. Off the top of my head, lots of other twentieth century fare, like Bentzon's sonatas (over 20 of them I think), Jolivet's two sonatas, Serocki's sonata, Auric's Partita for two pianos, and Lutoslawski's sonata could certainly stand to rejoin the world's piano repertoire. In a way, I guess the fact that Sorabji's work has been recorded and (most of it) typeset is actually pulling him ahead of several other composers in terms of availability, and that's probably because the bulk of his repertoire was never wrapped up in any publishing entanglements. A composer like Denmark's NV Bentzon (who passed away in 2000) has loads of work sitting in limbo with the EWH publishing house, who for some reason does not offer all of his piano sonatas or string quartets (over 10 of those) even though they had exclusivity over publishing his stuff while he was alive. They actually do sell volumes of his monster-work, the Tempered Piano (13 volumes of 24 prelude-fugue sets) but the price is absurdly high; so high that libraries don't even order it. The rest of his unavailable works are rotting away in a library in Copenhagen. He's just one example of a great composer who is being allowed to disappear because no one feels like making the sheets available. There are too many others.

Anyway, thanks for your informative replies, Alastair. This is a good topic to look through.

[webern78]

when pretentious students and pundits give it short shrift due to the lengthiness of the pieces

I don't think that's really the problem with Sorabji. Composers become famous either because they have a genial spark (which he seems to lack, high IQ or not) or because they rely on some special gimmick to attract attention (and Sorabji was fortunately above that). Morton Feldman is more 'popular' (so to speak) then Sorabji and his music is as lengthy as it gets (even if technically it's actually just stretched out, but whatever).

I'm a counterpoint freak so i always had a fascination for his work, but to be frank i don't think he'll ever achieve the same status of a Beethoven, or even a Debussy. Sorry.

BTW, i'm sure you guys are probably aware of this but i just heard that Jonathan Powell is giving a go at the Opus Clavicembalisticum. Should be interesting.

[ahinton]

BTW, i'm sure you guys are probably aware of this but i just heard that Jonathan Powell is giving a go at the Opus Clavicembalisticum. Should be interesting.

"Giving a go"? Are you kidding? He performed it privately here before an invited audience in 2003 and has since given no less than four public performances of the work, in London (2003), New York (2004), Helsinki (2005) and St. Petersburg (2005); I attended the first three of these. To describe all of those that I heard as merely "interesting" would be abit like saying that Mozart was a musician who played the viola - true, but just the bare beginnings of the whole truth.

Best,

Alistair

[webern78]

"Giving a go"? Are you kidding? He performed it privately here before an invited audience in 2003 and has since given no less than four public performances of the work, in London (2003), New York (2004), Helsinki (2005) and St. Petersburg (2005); I attended the first three of these. To describe all of those that I heard as merely "interesting" would be abit like saying that Mozart was a musician who played the viola - true, but just the bare beginnings of the whole truth.

Best,

Alistair

I'm talking about an actual recording. In fact, you can download the first part of it from his website:

https://jonathanpowell.wordpress.com/recordings/

Perhaps this is really old news, in that case forgive my ignorance.

[ahinton]

I'm talking about an actual recording. In fact, you can download the first part of it from his website:

https://jonathanpowell.wordpress.com/recordings/

Perhaps this is really old news, in that case forgive my ignorance.

Well, yes it is rather, but no need to "forgive" anything, really. He will surely make a commercial recording of the work as soon as he feels ready to do so (although I feel that he's been eminently ready to do so for quite some time, for what my opinion may or may not be worth).

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Blah, blah and more blah.

That is a very unusual way to begin your paragraph, are you suggesting that what I say is incesant babble (or is too true that you cannot deconstruct it)? Then you shouldn't be promted to respond, unless you have a lot of time to waste which it looks like you do.

Of course there are things where personal opinions are involved that cannot admit of the kind of precision on which all can agree, but then it is still good to see opinions expressed with precision and clarity, whether or not one may happen to agree with them.

You misunderstand what I mean by precision in writing. In fact I see many sides to an argument simultaneously but find it a great waste of time trying to describe both ends, it simply taxes too much time.

If I am writing on a pubilc forum I really don't feel I need such accuracy. I treat pianostreet as a meltiing pot of ideas, even if you disgree with me I enjoy that too so long you have something constructive to say with your disagreement and not just say "you are wrong". I do not treat piano forum as a battle of  "im right your wrong", nor do I try to change other peoples way of thinking.

Some people are overly interested to try and change peoples thinking, I tell you piano forum is not the most effective way to do this and thus this is why I do not invest pages and pages on trying to be accuracte. Feel free to browse my posts, you might actually find a few where I am trying to be accurate, they are pages long and have been done when I had time to actually waste.

But I wasn't talking about opinions - yours or anyone else's - ...... ; I was referring specifically to facts.

Your facts around your world and where you have treaded. Come to Australia you will see your facts are not holding up. Your facts my friend are not all encompassing otherwise you wouldn't have me saying Sorbaji's music is largely unknown/unappreciated here in Australia. Please come to Australia and prove you can make everyone enjoy Sorabji's music, I would be there enjoying it, I doubt many other people will though. Like I said please go out into society, outside your musical circles, I know it will be depressing but most people will tell you they don't even have a facination with the piano, let alone Sorabji. And that shouldn't make you feel superior over them.

I attended a mammoth programme in Montpellier.....

This is one example and I am sure you probably can give a few more. I can give you thousands of live concerts of Beethoven which have entranced an audience and brought them to their feet. Sorabji is still only being listened to live in microscopic areas, it is no where near the mainstream piano music. Live performance of Solo Piano music itself is a rarity, please I am being general when I say rare, don't start deconstructing me now. It is rare if you compare the amount of people sitting to listen to a piano concert as opposed to other live performances, it is even rarer to hear people play Sorabji, so you are looking at a very very very small % of music listeners observing Sorabji music being played, and then again a % of those listeners will not even enjoy it. Your numbers dwindle and your proof is only a reflection of a very very small section in this vast world.

Play an....  Etude from Sorbaji to someone, then play a one from Liszt and then ask them to judge which one they enjoyed the most. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL IF YOU THINK SORABJI WILL GET MORE VOTES.

[indutrial]

Good lord, what a tedious and unnecessary post. I really hope that you aren't seriously trying to enlighten people to the fact that Beethoven and Liszt (GASP!!!) have greater audience appeal than Sorabji. It's sort of like saying "hey, did you know that, on average, people like to jog in the park while the sun is out. More people jog their during the day than at night."

I have to chime in that the reasoning you're basing your arguments on is probably a perfect example the mentality that I consider severely destructive to classical music as a whole. Instead of just casting the net wide and treating all composers and pieces - both famous and obscure - with the same level of respect, you're letting the public appeal sully the waters and act as a qualifying agent. It's essentially a case of succumbing to the allure of hype, which tells the average consumer that "Beethoven is great, he's the best composer ever, no one will EVER be superior to him, his music was in Clockwork Orange, everyone has Fur Elise as their cell phone ring, now buy his complete sonatas and symphonies, do it! it's way better than all of that brainy 20th century music. That music is for pretentious losers" Popularity should not be taken into account. If scientists thought the same way and worried about the public's acceptance of their ideas, the world would still be considered flat and the sun would still appear to revolve around the earth. Art should operate on its own regardless of what Joe Public thinks, otherwise all of us would just sit around watching American Idol and listening to Eminem and the Fray instead of discussing Sorabji and other things that cater to the mental adventurism of stimulated individuals.

Seacrest out!

[Nightscape]

Mr. Hinton, I had a question.  Is anyone typesetting the Symphonic Nocturne at this time?  The mere concept of that piece is fascinating to me.  I don't really know much about it but I've read it's in the vein of Sorabji's exotic nocturnes - only surpasses the others greatly in length.

[ahinton]

Mr. Hinton, I had a question.  Is anyone typesetting the Symphonic Nocturne at this time?  The mere concept of that piece is fascinating to me.  I don't really know much about it but I've read it's in the vein of Sorabji's exotic nocturnes - only surpasses the others greatly in length.

Yes, it is being typeset, but I do not know when it will be ready.

Best,

Alistair

[bachundrach]

Hi indutrial,

Thank you dear sir for a well-thought and written commentary.  It could be worse - having to listen to 50-cent, Kanye West, Dr. Dre, Snoop-Dog, and the rest of the *Gangsta-Rappers* from the 'hood.

Cheers.

[ahinton]

That is a very unusual way to begin your paragraph, are you suggesting that what I say is incesant babble (or is too true that you cannot deconstruct it)?

The former, in this instance; it could not be the latter as there is almost nothing to deconstruct.

Then you shouldn't be promted to respond, unless you have a lot of time to waste which it looks like you do.

By which I take you to mean that I should not be prompted to respond if such responses include taking you to task for making statements for which you have not provided and cannot provide corroborative evidence. For the record, your post here suggests that you have far more time to waste than I do.

You misunderstand what I mean by precision in writing. In fact I see many sides to an argument simultaneously but find it a great waste of time trying to describe both ends, it simply taxes too much time.

When you go into denial that the vast majority of an audience previously unfamiliar with Sorabji's music nevertheless absorb it with concentrated enthusiasm, you are not describing both ends of anything; you are merely ignoring a fact that happens not to accord to the specious argument that you have chosen to present.

If I am writing on a pubilc forum I really don't feel I need such accuracy. I treat pianostreet as a meltiing pot of ideas, even if you disgree with me I enjoy that too so long you have something constructive to say with your disagreement and not just say "you are wrong". I do not treat piano forum as a battle of  "im right your wrong", nor do I try to change other peoples way of thinking.

Nor do I, but when statements are made that are neither supported by corroboration nor accurate, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that someone else says so. No one expects tyotal accuracy from everyone all this time here, of course, but that's a quite different matter from making statements for which little or no evidence is available or presented.

Some people are overly interested to try and change peoples thinking, I tell you piano forum is not the most effective way to do this and thus this is why I do not invest pages and pages on trying to be accuracte. Feel free to browse my posts, you might actually find a few where I am trying to be accurate, they are pages long and have been done when I had time to actually waste.

So you regard being, and/or attempting to be, accurate is a waste of time? I'm not trying to change anyone's thinking here about public reception of Sorabji's music; the purpose of my responses to your statements was to point out that they are far from universally true. No more, no less.

Your facts around your world and where you have treaded. Come to Australia you will see your facts are not holding up. Your facts my friend are not all encompassing otherwise you wouldn't have me saying Sorbaji's music is largely unknown/unappreciated here in Australia.

Leaving your spelling of the composer's name to one side for a moment, when did I ever suggest otherwise? Whilst there can be no question that Sorabji's music is likely to appeal only to a very small minority of the population as a whole (whether in Australia or anywhere else), but then the same may be said of tens of thousands of other composers, some of whom are, of course, far more widely appreciated than Sorabji and some far less so.

Please come to Australia and prove you can make everyone enjoy Sorabji's music, I would be there enjoying it, I doubt many other people will though. Like I said please go out into society, outside your musical circles, I know it will be depressing but most people will tell you they don't even have a facination with the piano, let alone Sorabji. And that shouldn't make you feel superior over them.

See above. I'll gladly respond to your invitiation to come to Australia if you fund the trip, but I would not be expecting to convince everyone there tht Sorabji's music is for them, let alone offering any impression of "superiority".

This is one example and I am sure you probably can give a few more. I can give you thousands of live concerts of Beethoven which have entranced an audience and brought them to their feet. Sorabji is still only being listened to live in microscopic areas, it is no where near the mainstream piano music. Live performance of Solo Piano music itself is a rarity, please I am being general when I say rare, don't start deconstructing me now. It is rare if you compare the amount of people sitting to listen to a piano concert as opposed to other live performances, it is even rarer to hear people play Sorabji, so you are looking at a very very very small % of music listeners observing Sorabji music being played, and then again a % of those listeners will not even enjoy it. Your numbers dwindle and your proof is only a reflection of a very very small section in this vast world.

Play an....  Etude from Sorbaji to someone, then play a one from Liszt and then ask them to judge which one they enjoyed the most. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL IF YOU THINK SORABJI WILL GET MORE VOTES.

Well, surprise, surprise! You have nonetheless wasted a vast amount of time here in some kind of attempt to convince me of something of which I was obviously already well aware, yet that awareness makes no difference to what I have written. Take any 1,000 people at random on a main city shopping street in UK and ask them simple questions about Beethoven and about The Spice Girls and you will surely know in advance what you will and won't find.

Best,

Alistair

[jabbz]

Perhaps Sorabji was gifted in his atonality/bi-tonality, but whos to say he had any genius in the Tonal arts? I don't know, 'cause as I say, I know so little about Sorabji, I don't really know what he composed. I'm just trying to address this argument. I very much doubt Sorabji could write a tonal masterpiece like Beethoven's 9th, but I also doubt that Beethoven could write something like OC. Maybe I've very much mistaken, and if I am, please correct me, but thats my view on it.

[mephisto]

Most of Sorabji's music is tonal. Maybe all of it, but I wouldn't know. Wether or not it is tonal doesn't really matter. But it is certainly not atonal in the Schoenbergian sense.

[ahinton]

Most of Sorabji's music is tonal. Maybe all of it, but I wouldn't know. Wether or not it is tonal doesn't really matter. But it is certainly not atonal in the Schoenbergian sense.

You are absolutely correct here, both in the fact of Sorabji's tonal language and in the fact that its tonality doesn't matter at least in the sense of determining how good it is. He wrote as he wished to write, just as Schönberg did - and let it not be forgotten that Schönberg wrote a lot of very definitely tonal music.

I would add here only that, as I have mentioned before, tonality is a relative concept that is dependent at least in part upon the extent and level of aural experience and percipience of the ears of the beholder, by which I mean that what may come across as "atonal" to some ears may not necessarily do so at all, or to the same extent, to others.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Just as a final post into this stupid thread about a composer who will never become well known in this world. Ahinton I really wonder if you have ever been wrong in your life? That is not a question for you, its just something I wonder I am not interested in what you have to say really.  

When we read your quoting of other people and attempting to prove them wrong it is BLAH BLAH BALH to us blah BLAH, yes your incessant babble and time wasteage  You make yourself look like some big shot music titan, yet you waste your time on forum like this. You are sad. I would love to meet you face to face, then I could understand why you are so.... up yourself. Same goes for anyone else who tries to sound SOooooooo right... omg im so over you kind of people, if I can describe you as people.

I challenge you NOT TO RESPOND to my post. I bet you cannot. because you always have to have the last word like a little school kid You know why iI don't bother talking seriously with you? Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Hopefully that gives you a hint.


ahaha watch me control ahinton and how madly he quotes me below. ^___^

[ahinton]

Just as a final post into this stupid thread.

If you really think it's that stupid, why are you continuing to contribute to it?

ahinton I really wonder if you have ever been wrong in your life?

I doubt that you really do wonder that but, whether or not you do, I can assure that I have been wrong about many things on many occasions - just like most of the rest of us.

You probably have an explaination for it,

No, not really - nor do I feel any need to contrive one.

really you are probably one of the most annoying people I have ever talked to on piano forum.

If I cared at all, I'd "probably" appreciate your uise of the word "probably" but, if you find my posts that annoying, you would surely be better off not reading them.

I learn NOTHING from what you say,

That's up to you; I'm not seeking specifically to teach you anything in any case.

just hear your objections

Yes - selective listening; it's instantly recognisable.

and blah BLAH, yes your incessant babble and time wasteage

I presume you to be looking in the mirror as you write this.

you make yourself look like some hig shot music titan,

I presume you to mean "big shot", but no, you are quite wrong about that (although no doubt you won't like to be told this).

yet you waste your time on forum like this.

I think that it is you that is wasting time here.

You are sad.

Er - no; your posting don't affect me that much at all, for all that I can spend a few seconds responding to them if I feel so disposed.

I would love to meet you face to face,

I regret that i cannot claim that this wish is mutual.

then I could understand

I have little confidence in what understanding you might derive from any experience.

I challenge you NOT TO RESPOND to my post. I bet you cannot.

I'm no more interested in your challenge or in responding thereto than I am in how much you might bet yourself.

because you always have to have the last word

No one ever has that.

like a little school kid

You are indeed when you write like this.

You know why iI don't bother talking seriously with you?

My best guess is that you're more or less incapable of talking seriously to anyone, although I would add that, if I am doing you any disservice in so saying, it is wholly as a direct consequence of reading what you have written here, so I guess that it's mirror time for you once again...

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.

And, for your final flourish, you ape Susan! Ah, well...

Perhaps those of us interested in the thread topic might now draw a veil over this and return to it. Let's have some more words - on the subject - rather than anticipate anyone's "last" ones...

Best,

Alistair

[webern78]

tonality is a relative concept

No it's not. Tonality occupies a specific theoretic dimension. There are no ambiguities. Anybody who argues atonal music is merely a different form of 'tonality' is being subjected to a massive dose of double think. You can't impose your own subjective perceptions (particularly created ones) upon reality.

This type of relativistic nonsense is the reason why we have trite like John Cage being passed on as genuine art.

[webern78]

but I also doubt that Beethoven could write something like OC.

Really? How would you know? Isn't the dobule fugue of the Opus.130 an early prototype of Sorabji contrapuntal excesses? What about the way-ward fugue in the Hammerklavier?

[ahinton]

No it's not. Tonality occupies a specific theoretic dimension. There are no ambiguities. Anybody who argues atonal music is merely a different form of 'tonality' is being subjected to a massive dose of double think. You can't impose your own subjective perceptions (particularly created ones) upon reality.

I think that you misunderstand my meaning. You would surely accept that the use on tonality in  Haydn's Symphony No. 104 and its use in, say, Schönberg's Kammersymphonie Nr. 1 are very different from one another, yet the works are still both tonal and dependent upon tonal harmonic progressions. There are - to my ears, at any rate - ample tonal references and inflections in the serial music of Schönberg and others; this is why I write of tonality as a relative concept. I don't "create" my perceptions, although I accept that they are indeed only mine.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Really? How would you know? Isn't the dobule fugue of the Opus.130 an early prototype of Sorabji contrapuntal excesses? What about the way-ward fugue in the Hammerklavier?

Good point! And, furthermore, can you imagine Sorabji's fugues not having grown in some sense out of the two Beethoven examples that you mention here?

Best,

Alistair

[bachundrach]

Well, well, well - our dear forum commentator *lostinidlewonder* has to always have the last word - must be a lonely existence the poor soul leads - all alone in front of a screen, stewing, fuming, fussing...

 "...as avid and uncritical a mopper-up of press dope as the generality; and to sum up, with no qualities of mind or personality that make any time passed in his neighborhood, let alone in his company, anything other than spiritually and morally profitless, a waste, null and void."

--- Kaikhosru Sorabji, Mi Contra Fa---

[indutrial]

I've always liked to draw an amorphous abstract line between rigid tonality and free tonality, which doesn't use the most solidly diatonic tone hierarchies to determine compositional choices, but by the same token doesn't go as far afield as atonality, which to me relinquishes any tonal hierarchy. They are both completely relative terms that can mean different things to different individuals.

Sorabji's music definitely uses tonal methodology, even if it's not immediately easy to nail down and branches into thicker polytonalities.

[ahinton]

I've always liked to draw an amorphous abstract line between rigid tonality and free tonality, which doesn't use the most solidly diatonic tone hierarchies to determine compositional choices, but by the same token doesn't go as far afield as atonality, which to me relinquishes any tonal hierarchy. They are both completely relative terms that can mean different things to different individuals.

Sorabji's music definitely uses tonal methodology, even if it's not immediately easy to nail down and branches into thicker polytonalities.

Here you wisely lead into something that perhaps some people allow themselves to be confused by - i.e. the difference (where it is such) between diatonicism and tonality. Sorabji doesn't often write passages that are obviously diatonic (although he does not eschew such things) and he generally tends to avoid the kind of sense of tonal centring to which many people may have accustomed themselves by growing familiarity with other repertoire, yet he never goes far without making some kind of tonal point; never does he wander away from triadic persuasions and, even though his harmonic sense may be perceived by some as well less than conventional in terms of most European music up to the dawn of WWI, he never loses sight of a sense of tonality, even though always on his own very specific terms.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Exactly...Sorabji's approach with regard to tone is similar (and perhaps inspired by) the folk-inspired ventures outside of diatonic playing that composers like Szymanowski and Bartok used to extend their tonal vocabulary. Scriabin's later pieces also evince this, especially with harmonies like his mystical chord (which I believe in jazz theory speak is a dominant 7th #11th chord which comes from melodic minor tonality. It's far from normal sounding in the 19th century definition of "normal", but certainly not atonal like some of Ustvolskaya's sonatas.

[jabbz]

Really? How would you know? Isn't the dobule fugue of the Opus.130 an early prototype of Sorabji contrapuntal excesses? What about the way-ward fugue in the Hammerklavier?

I doubt Beethoven could have written anything like OC because Beethoven was firmly grounded in tonal composition, God bless him. Thats not to say if Beethoven had have been around with Schoenberg he wouldn't write atonal masterworks, he no doubt could have, but he wasn't, so thats that really.

[jabbz]

Okay, I replay to my own post after reading some vital posts I had missed. Sorabji's work probably evolved out of the Beethoven examples. I'm just going to put forward here that Beethoven is my idol before I proceed, that sets the context.

I know very little of Sorabji, but what I do know of Sorabji is that what little I have heard has no distinctly rememorable (or 'singable') melody. In the minds of some, that puts it immediately into atonal music, somewhat incorrectly. In music that is tonal, where there is no sense of melody, you'll find there will be momentum in the progressions, or perhaps other things, such as the texture. I really do need to listen to more Sorabji before I make such general comments, but from what I have heard of Sorabji, namely a few of the TEs, I can't really find much in the way of melody, but there is movement. I'm finding Sorabji to be like an impressionist, is that wrong? There is Harmony, Texture, and some forms of melody, but the music is both gripping and dull at the same time. No 'easy' melody to follow, but exciting movements, definitely.

I can't really express my thoughts about this subject very well, I'm only young. 

Would I be wrong is saying Beethoven was a genius' Genius, and Sorabji was a lesser genius?

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't actually have any problems with ahinton (although he is annoying that he thinks people care about his useless and ineffective quoting habits, I expect to see many years of his rambling, I might have to ignore this geriatric in the future). I just wanted to test to see if provoked how much more he goes into the quoting mode Thanks for playing.

[ahinton]

I don't actually have any problems with ahinton.

Nice to note that there is at least something with which you "don't actually have any problems".

I just wanted to test to see if provoked how much more he goes into the quoting mode

Well, I hope that you've now satisfied yourself.

Thanks for playing.

Playing what? Who has played what? I can't hear anyone playing anything here - not even any music by the subject of this thread...

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[indutrial]

Would I be wrong is saying Beethoven was a genius' Genius, and Sorabji was a lesser genius?

Yes you would, because that question is meaningless.

They both obviously have socially-agreed-upon 'genius' qualities, but, by-and-large, a comparison between these two composers' intelligence quotients is not very constructive (unless you're in the business of constructing intellectual cubby holes). Genius is something that is only perceived and not achieved, so you'll have to listen to their pieces and decide for yourself. I find both composers very interesting in very different ways.

[indutrial]

I haven't read a single post in this thread, but having read many of the Sorabji discussions on here, I think it's fair to say that the negativity stems from stupidity.

Sorabji is bound to be a lightning rod for young, moody piano know-it-alls just because the Opus Clavicembalisticum stands out like a Frankenstein monster by virtue of its enormous length and breadth as a piece. It essentially gets treated the way a book like Musil's Man Without Qualities or Proust's In Search of Lost Time gets treated by literature students who prefer things in neater, tighter packages. When we attempted to read Musil's large multi-volume book in my German lit class in college, the class reacted very badly. When we read shorter works by Franz Kafka and Thomas Mann, things were generally much smoother. It is my experience that a lot of listeners prefer their art in well-contained media, so a five-hour Sorabji work will inevitably catch a lot of flac for ignoring that preference. I'll admit that I love Sorabji's composition, but the scale of the work is indeed daunting (especially if you have a small bladder). I'm certain that, for the same reasons, a lot of people won't enjoy Rzewski's The Road, which is only a bit shy of 10 hours in total length.

[ahinton]

Sorabji is bound to be a lightning rod for young, moody piano know-it-alls just because the Opus Clavicembalisticum stands out like a Frankenstein monster by virtue of its enormous length and breadth as a piece.

If and to the extent that this may be so, it surely tells us far more about those "young, moody piano know-it-alls" than about Opus Clavicembalisticum (if indeed it tells us anything at all that's worth remembering)? Furthermore, it could well be argued that this work only "stands out like a Frankenstein monster by virtue of its enormous length and breadth" to the extent that, so far, it is better known than other large-scale works by the same composer that have been performed and/or recorded (for example the Fourth Piano Sonata and Fourth and Fifth Piano Symphonies) and, having been published more than three-quarters of a century ago (unlike those other big pieces), it has stood a greater chance of acquiring some degree of externally imposed notoriety.

It essentially gets treated the way a book like Musil's Man Without Qualities or Proust's In Search of Lost Time gets treated by literature students who prefer things in neater, tighter packages. When we attempted to read Musil's large multi-volume book in my German lit class in college, the class reacted very badly. When we read shorter works by Franz Kafka and Thomas Mann, things were generally much smoother. It is my experience that a lot of listeners prefer their art in well-contained media, so a five-hour Sorabji work will inevitably catch a lot of flac for ignoring that preference. I'll admit that I love Sorabji's composition, but the scale of the work is indeed daunting (especially if you have a small bladder). I'm certain that, for the same reasons, a lot of people won't enjoy Rzewski's The Road, which is only a bit shy of 10 hours in total length.

You make some very valid points here but, without seeking in any sense to undermine any of them, I would counsel yet again that most of Sorabji's works are not of such daunting length and that, in any case, it is the responsibility of the composer to try to get the duration of every piece right in terms of what it has to convey, whether that be four hours, four minutes or four seconds (and I nearly added "or four minutes, thirty three seconds"). The bladder problem has indeed to be taken into due consideration when attending a public performance (as distinct from listening to a recording in the privacy of one's home), yet this is nothing new, as is clear from momentary comparison of the lengths of continuous music in Götterdämmerung and Opus Clavicembalisticum (except, perhaps, when Jonathan Powell performs the latter in his self-chosen was with no intermission between parts 1 & 2, making those two parts total some 2½ hours). OK, when Kevin Bowyer eventually performs Sorabji's Second Organ Symphony, this problem will admittedly be somewhat more to the fore, since the work's anticipated duration is some seven hours yet the first of its three movements is only a whisker over an hour. One simply has to make due preparation as far as is practical and bear regrettably in mind the likelihood that such a public listening experience may have to remain off-limits for certain people with particular renal/urinary difficulties (or maybe leg-bags should be provided free upon request for those suffering such disabilities).

Best,

Alistair

[jabbz]

Yes you would, because that question is meaningless.

The question actually did have meaning to start, because there was an issue raised about Sorabji and Beethoven in comparison, but your answer, which is fairly sound has rendered any such question fairly obsolete.

[indutrial]

it has stood a greater chance of acquiring some degree of externally imposed notoriety.

Indeed, I have seen this work in more than one local college library while other works of Sorabji's are not nearly as easy to find (including pieces once published). I would guess that the OC was probably the first piece to simply fall into "that role" of being the longest piece written for piano widely recognized as the internet came into its current stage of development over the past five years (websites like Wikipedia and other geek-infested places seem to love drawing attention to every possible superlative phenomenon in the world, be it the longest piano piece or a list of movies that say the F word more than 200 times etc. etc.).

Its notoriety is only augmented by the fact that it's also a thrice-recorded piece and one which people in the internet sheet music cartels have been passing around for a few years now.

I'd say that the OC fell into the role of being a musical analogue to, say, Proust's big book (truly liked and appreciated by few, not widely publicly known, disliked by many prematurely, and sadly treated as a curiosity first and a work of art second).

I'm sure that once Rzewski's Road is recorded and distributed online as a 500+ page PDF file, it won't be long before people start firing verbal diarrhea back and forth about the merits and demerits of a piece nearly twice as long (and way more avant-garde) than Sorabji's big 'un.

[ahinton]

Indeed, I have seen this work in more than one local college library while other works of Sorabji's are not nearly as easy to find (including pieces once published).

They're all easy to find nowadays and have been for some 20 years, but that fact doesn't detract from your point that they may for the most part be hard to find in public or academic libraries (although such institutions all know where they can get them from).

I would guess that the OC was probably the first piece to simply fall into "that role" of being the longest piece written for piano widely recognized as the internet came into its current stage of development over the past five years (websites like Wikipedia and other geek-infested places seem to love drawing attention to every possible superlative phenomenon in the world, be it the longest piano piece or a list of movies that say the F word more than 200 times etc. etc.).

That's about right - and the fact that, unlike any other big work by Sorabji, OC was actually performed way back at the time of its composition (albeit only once) and published shortly thereafter gave it those "opportunities" that the other even larger works of his never had (OK, the Fourth Sonata was also performed when it was new, too - and, at around half the length of OC, it's still a big work by most standards), but it was not published until recently.

Its notoriety is only augmented by the fact that it's also a thrice-recorded piece and one which people in the internet sheet music cartels have been passing around for a few years now.

...having gotten it from us in the first place! Fortunately, this activity has made no difference to our sales of this item, which we have been issuing in a version including corrections in the composer's hand for about 10 years now.

I'd say that the OC fell into the role of being a musical analogue to, say, Proust's big book (truly liked and appreciated by few, not widely publicly known, disliked by many prematurely, and sadly treated as a curiosity first and a work of art second).

That's pretty much it, really. The attachment of John Ogdon's name to it has certainly helped to diffuse this and, now that Jonathan Powell has played the piece on several occasions not just with astonishing textual accuracy but also tremendous lucidity and power, this mythical curiosity status is fortunately fast becoming a thing of the past.

I'm sure that once Rzewski's Road is recorded and distributed online as a 500+ page PDF file, it won't be long before people start firing verbal diarrhea back and forth about the merits and demerits of a piece nearly twice as long (and way more avant-garde) than Sorabji's big 'un.

I'm not so sure about that these days. Sorabji's Fourth Sonata and Fourth and Fifth Piano Symphonies have all been performed during the present decade, as has Michael Finnisy's 5½-hour-long A History of Photography in Sound, so I'm by no means entirely convinced that this kind of notoriety will take hold quite so successfully as it did in the good old days when OC was relatively new.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

I'm not so sure about that these days. Sorabji's Fourth Sonata and Fourth and Fifth Piano Symphonies have all been performed during the present decade, as has Michael Finnisy's 5½-hour-long A History of Photography in Sound, so I'm by no means entirely convinced that this kind of notoriety will take hold quite so successfully as it did in the good old days when OC was relatively new.

A key element to a piece really crossing the threshold into notoriety is certainly the availability of a recorded copy, as in the two OC recordings available. I'd love to see the piano symphonies get released. I have the fourth in the form of a radio-show recording that somebody acquired somehow. I agree that the notoriety stage is likely in the past, and it's almost certain that the O.C. will remain the equivalent to Beethoven's 5th, at least in the minds of many pianists.

Finnissy is certainly known as an intense composer, but almost no one ever discusses anything about his works at all.  The pieces of his that have been recorded don't really get much discussion and some pieces are treated as curiosities. I read somewhere that Metier Records is planning on releasing a full recording of  A History of Photography in Sound, which may or may not get people thinking about his work some more.

I expect that if Rzewski's full version of The Road is released as a recording...somehow...that the piece would grab a lot of peoples' attention spans. 10 hours would be the record at that point.