Sorabji plays his own music!

[dnephi]

The garbage is the three pages of argument.  I'm sorry, I thought that that was rather clear.  I don't mind the title or the discussion, and I even think it's valuable to see what the composer himsellf thought. 

[lorguemystique]

Dear dnephi,

Respectfully, dear sir, I don't make garbage - I Burn It. 

[dnephi]

Dear dnephi,

Respectfully, dear sir, I don't make garbage - I Burn It. 

Please explain to me how you live life without creating waste.  It would be such a breakthrough to discover a way around the second law of thermodynamics- not to mention the mathematical principles upon which it is founded! 

[lorguemystique]

Dear dnephi,

I see that I have coaxed you out of your lair.  If I were to tell you how I avoid creating waste without contravening basic laws of physics and the mathematics behind them, I should surely be pennyless.   

Seriously, I understand that you care not for Sorabji's music and I respect that.  Please be advised that there is, I'm sure you know, much other music that we probably both enjoy e.g. Beethoven.

So, dear sir, lay down your Excalibur for I pose no threat to you.

Cheers!

[dnephi]

I'm not arguing with you.  I'm just saying that there was a lot of hot air thrown around on both sides of the table and I don't think it was worth it for either.

"I have no quarrel with you, dear brother."

[lorguemystique]

Sir dnephi,

All of us including yours truly have passions for or against this or that composer, as you well know.  I guess that this forum will attract some who will, over the course of time, vent their spleen or extol the incontrovertible excellence of composer "x" or composer "y".  Surely you could find it within your purview to entertain differing notions while not having to accept them.  For behold, a beam of light may have been lit by the passionate exchange of ideas, opinions. and passions.  How can we be sure that somebody's interest has not been awakened because of spirited debate?  I certainly have no intention of being at variance with you. 

Yes, "hot air" can exchange here - maybe it will fill a balloon for to provide a vehicle for further exploration, n'est-ce pas?

Cheers!

[dnephi]

I think you have a point- maybe someone decided to try something new because they read the heated debate?

I thank you for your insight and look forward to continued contact.

[lorguemystique]

Sir dnephi,

I'm glad this humble servant can provide just a little insight.  I am no "Oracle at Delphi" nor is it my intention to be one.  I am here on this forum to learn and observe interactions betwixt its members so that I may be be informed to better reach out to my fellow music colleagues and music appreciators.

I too look forward to continued exchange of views and ideas between us and the forum-at-large.

Respectfully yours 

[ahinton]

The real problem here has, rather obviously, been that sensible and serious discussion of the topic has occupied only part of the thread; were the remaining material excised (some of which contributes nothing much beyond a drawing of attention to the writer), it would be quite considerably shorter. This, of course, doesn't help.

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

The real problem here has is rather obviously [if it's so obvious, you don't need to say so] been that sensible and serious discussion of the topic has occupied occupies only part of the thread.  Some posts only draws attention to the writer.

were the remaining material excised (some of which contributes nothing much beyond a drawing of attention to the writer), it would be quite considerably shorter. This, of course, doesn't help.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The real problem here has is rather obviously [if it's so obvious, you don't need to say so]

That's up to me, not you and its obviousness may be less clear to some than to others (no names mentioned, of course).

been that sensible and serious discussion of the topic has occupied occupies only part of the thread.  Some posts only draws attention to the writer.

Love the grammar...

were the remaining material excised (some of which contributes nothing much beyond a drawing of attention to the writer), it would be quite considerably shorter. This, of course, doesn't help.

And your point here is...? Oh, of course - you don't actually have one! Well, at least you can be awarded marks for consistency, though sadly not for silence.

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

That's up to me,[comma inappropriate] not you and its obviousness ["not me and it's obviousness"??] may be less clear to some than to others (no names mentioned, of course).
And your point here is...? Oh, of course - you don't actually have one! Well, at least you can be awarded marks for consistency, even if not for silence. [This sentence does not make sense]

[ahinton]

That's up to me,[comma inappropriate]

No.

["not me and it's obviousness"??]

??

may be less clear to some than to others (no names mentioned, of course).
And your point here is...? Oh, of course - you don't actually have one! Well, at least you can be awarded marks for consistency, even if not for silence. [This sentence does not make sense]

It makes perfect sense, in that your contributions to this thread have been consistently useless whereas your silence, which would have been welcome, has been woefully lacking.

If you have nothing to contribute to this thread that relates specifically to the subject and is constructive and interesting (and if the best you can do is make less than accurate copies of extracts from others' posts for no purpose whatsoever), it would be sensible for you to (well, if you can't at least complete THIS sentence, there's little hope for you...)

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

No big deal, man.

I find it ironic that you constantly correct grammar despite the fact that you are a rather weak writer yourself.

Nothing a first-year university writing course couldn't remedy, though. 

[ahinton]

No big deal, man.

No deal at all, as far as I am concerned.

I find it ironic

How clever of you!

that you constantly correct grammar

No.

despite the fact that you are a rather weak writer yourself.

In your apparent opinion - and you have already amply demonstrated the value of your "opinions" in your previous posts here.

Nothing a first-year university writing course couldn't remedy, though. 

Courses themselves cannot "remedy" anything, but why don't you take one in any case? At least that would get you off here for a while...

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

I will give you one of Thalberg's eggs if this discussion ends here.

[michel dvorsky]

Courses themselves cannot "remedy" anything, but why don't you take one in any case?

Education remedies ignorance.

If you're truly this uncritical, it's no wonder you're a fan of Sorabji.  You're punctuation ridden semi-literate piles of prose are an appropriate verbal analog to that pathetic mishmash you call music.

At least that would get you off here for a while...

Hey, I'm not the one who has posted several thousand nuggets of bandwidth-wasting rubbish you would call posts!

[ahinton]

Education remedies ignorance.

Unless you haven't received any education, your own writings prove that statement to be patently untrue.

If you're truly this uncritical,

"Uncritical" of what? Not you, for sure...

it's no wonder you're a fan of Sorabji.

As his literary executor and founder and curator of his archive, it would be rather odd if I did not care for his work...

You're punctuation

No, I'm not.

that pathetic mishmash you call music.

Like most people here, I use the term music only to describe that which is music.

Hey, I'm not the one who has posted several thousand nuggets of bandwidth-wasting rubbish you would call posts!

I am aware that your total of such things so far is a mere 70 but it is rising rapidly - and I wouldn't dignify what you write with the term "posts", for they are nothing better than examples of the droppings of one of those insects that is merely noisome but that likes to think that it can also sting (pace Sorabji).

...(yawn)...

Topic, anyone?

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Wow.... Though I'm partly guilty of contributing to this giant shitwich of a thread at points, I'm amazed at just how far discussions/arguments regarding the forum ethics of the thread have eclipsed anything that actually has something to do with Sorabji, Sorabji's playing, the playing of one's own music, music in general, piano playing...you know, anything even remotely related to the subject line or the forum's namesake.

The worst of you, who seem drunk on milking argumentative responses and rebuttals out of Alistair to no end, really should get lost and go back to trolling other fluff threads about politics and crap...since it's continually obvious that you can't stick your nose into a music thread without starting limpdicked, pointless arguments right away and letting the topics go fallow in the wake of your own uninteresting ego-strokings.

Alistair, PLEASE stop responding to all this prodding nonsense! Dignifying douchebag behaviors just leads to bigger and badder douchebag behaviors, as douchebags will ALWAYS redouble their efforts in the face of adversity, making the world not so much worse but definitely more annoying.

[ahinton]

Wow.... Though I'm partly guilty of contributing to this giant shitwich of a thread at points, I'm amazed at just how far discussions/arguments regarding the forum ethics of the thread have eclipsed anything that actually has something to do with Sorabji, Sorabji's playing, the playing of one's own music, music in general, piano playing...you know, anything even remotely related to the subject line or the forum's namesake.

Given the content of your contributions, I see no need for guilt on your part, but I agree entirely with the remainder of what you write.

The worst of you, who seem drunk on milking argumentative responses and rebuttals out of Alistair to no end, really should get lost and go back to trolling other fluff threads about politics and crap...since it's continually obvious that you can't stick your nose into a music thread without starting limpdicked, pointless arguments right away and letting the topics go fallow in the wake of your own uninteresting ego-strokings.

Such folk are, fortunately, very much in a minority among members of this forum but, as I have observed before, they are often also the noisiest.

Alistair, PLEASE stop responding to all this prodding nonsense! Dignifying douchebag behaviors just leads to bigger and badder douchebag behaviors, as douchebags will ALWAYS redouble their efforts in the face of adversity, making the world not so much worse but definitely more annoying.

I think that my only conceivable retort to this kind of thing (of which there has, in this thread, been a disproportionately large quantity from one particular member) is
(...yawn...)
so anyone wishing to add further such irrelevant and (in both senses) impertinent contributions here should bear that in mind in advance and, that in turn discourages those would-be contributors from posting their rubbish, so much the better for everyone here who is actually interested either in discussing the topic or reading worthwhile contributions to it or both.

Best,

Alistair

[virtuatony]

Such folk are, fortunately, very much in a minority among members of this forum but, as I have observed before, they are often also the noisiest.


Best,

Alistair

Like all kids

[s_bussotti]

WHAT IS THIS THREAD

[ahinton]

WHAT IS THIS THREAD

It is what its title states it to be, but that does not immunise it against the kind of hijack to which the most recent posts are responses.

Best,

Alistair

[s_bussotti]

It is what its title states it to be, but that does not immunise it against the kind of hijack to which the most recent posts are responses.

Best,

Alistair

This has to be the most idiotic Sorabji thread ever, and they usually end up pretty stupid so that says a lot >>

[indutrial]

Like all kids

No, just a large enough number of those whose parents never smacked them in the back of the head when they mouthed off at dinner-time.

[ahinton]

This has to be the most idiotic Sorabji thread ever, and they usually end up pretty stupid so that says a lot >>

Had it concentrated on the thread topic itself, it need have been nothing of the kind; as it is, however, a whole raft of it is indeed "idiotic" but not, in fact, part of a "Sorabji thread" at all.

Best,

Alistair

[ctrastevere]

This really disappoints me. If I had any idea this thread would have turned out this way, I wouldn't have started it at all.

[ahinton]

This really disappoints me. If I had any idea this thread would have turned out this way, I wouldn't have started it at all.

Of course you wouldn't. It's hardly your fault!

Best,

Alistair

[Etude]

About 90% of Sorabji threads end in a flame war.

[ahinton]

About 90% of Sorabji threads end in a flame war.

I don't think that this is in any meaningful sense Sorabji's fault, do you? - and, if it isn't, what conclusions would you therefore draw therefrom while you helpfully endeavour to fan (and hopefully extinguish) the flames? You don't suppose that Skryabin, in one of his more psychically visionary moments, foresaw this kind of thing and then wrote Vers la Flamme as a consequence, do you?...

Best,

Alistair

[lorguemystique]

What an excellent riposte by Sir Alistair 

The man is a genius.

[indutrial]

About 90% of Sorabji threads end in a flame war.

If you add the threads from the Sorabji Archive's forum to this statistic, things will definitely look less hopeless. It's not really about Sorabji here anyway. I'd say that 60% of the threads on post-1900 music become tediously opinionated, eventually becoming flame-a-thons and finally thread mourn-a-thons! But I notice this in baroque/classical/romantic threads too (a lot less of course). The root of what makes threads problematic is that some of the users aren't really coming here to talk about music as much as they are coming to talk about themselves, a subject that is so wrapped in egotism and psychological baggage that it almost always incites passion before reason. No matter how much music they're including in their dialogue, most of them are not making enough effort towards assuming a balanced and objective standpoint. I don't really understand why some people find it so hard to simply abstain from a topic they don't care about when others obviously find it interesting. I mean, would any of you walk into the modern art section of the Metropolitan Museum and start shouting out loud about how and why the works of Picasso and Dali are garbage and that nobody should look at them because YOU don't like them (I've actually seen people do this and it's almost surreal to imagine that people are capable of such brashness).

[Etude]

Indeed.  The problems arise when people are unable to make the distinction between personal taste and factual assessment of quality.  I have also encountered people who actually believe that because they don't like something, it is worthless to anyone else.

[indutrial]

Indeed.  The problems arise when people are unable to make the distinction between personal taste and factual assessment of quality.  I have also encountered people who actually believe that because they don't like something, it is worthless to anyone else.

Around here, I've come around to recognizing that most of them just like getting a rise out of people, among the other base motivations behind shameless forum trolling. Occasionally, we get treated to the inane spectacle of some kind of musical pureblood who feels that their pedestrian abilities as one among thousands of classical music students gives them a mandate to 1.) bash on other genres like a smug a-hole, 2.) make a bunch of idealistic comments on non-existent abstract concepts, general terms, or universals in a vain effort to set an agenda in his or her own assumed genre.

This behavior is almost too predictable now, and all the more lame when it crops up considering how many times it's been pointed out how counterproductive and stupid it is.

[general disarray]

The root of what makes threads problematic is that some of the users aren't really coming here to talk about music as much as they are coming to talk about themselves, a subject that is so wrapped in egotism and psychological baggage that it almost always incites passion before reason.

 I mean, would any of you walk into the modern art section of the Metropolitan Museum and start shouting out loud about how and why the works of Picasso and Dali are garbage and that nobody should look at them because YOU don't like them (I've actually seen people do this and it's almost surreal to imagine that people are capable of such brashness).

I agree, but the fundamental problem with "debates" here -- or on any other internet forum -- is, first, the anonymity and, second, the ease with which malcontents can express their absurd opinions.  If one were required to type out a letter, edit it, purchase a stamp, affix the damned thing to an envelope and cross the street to find a post office or a mailbox, there'd be very little offensive and thoughtless responses.  

But with these forums, there's little hindrance to logging on and just expelling gaseous blather, prompted, I would guess, by extreme boredom complicated by a personality disorder.

I doubt many malcontents rave in the galleries at museums for the reason that an audience only of security guards would gather around.  On the internet, the audience gathers around like rubber-neckers at a traffic accident and, even worse, finds it necessary to comment -- as I am doing!  But, enough is enough.  I don't frequent forums much anymore primarily because of the nastiness -- so perfectly exemplified in this thread about an extraordinary composer named Sorabji.  Like him or not, he's a genius.


  

[indutrial]

Indeed. What needs to be realized is simply "Like it or not, nobody gives a tin s**t whether you like it or not." It's like people enjoy the freedom afforded by anonymity but they think that spreading anonymous opinions somehow grants definition to their non-anonymous self.
 What a self-defeating cycle.

[general disarray]

Amen, brother!

[ahinton]

I agree, but the fundamental problem with "debates" here -- or on any other internet forum -- is, first, the anonymity and, second, the ease with which malcontents can express their absurd opinions.

Well, there's no anonymity from me! Everyone here knows exactly who I am, my email address is not hidden and nor is my website, so I am prepared to stand or fall by what I write when I do so...

On the internet, the audience gathers around like rubber-neckers at a traffic accident

What Next?(!)...

this thread about an extraordinary composer named Sorabji.  Like him or not, he's a genius.

Can't argue with that...(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[jaypiano]

Hi everyone, particularly Alistair.  New to all of this, but certainly not new to new music, or to extraordinary, visionary music from the beginning of the 20th century, and of course that includes
Sorabji.  I'm a concert pianist specializing in 20th-21st century music, and many composers are writing works for me.  All of the above not to "show off", but to indicate the context from which I am coming.
I have a question for you, Alistair.  In what piano work does Sorabji indicate clearly, FOR THE FIRST TIME, Ped. III, sostenuto pedal?  I own scores of the "Two Pieces for Piano" of 1918 and the 2nd Piano Sonata (1920), and in the latter are numerous Ped. III markings: for me, the first piano work in history to have them.  Are you aware of any earlier works with Ped. III markings?  It's a fascinating historical search to which I've been attentive for quite some time, and would greatly appreciate your input on this.  Many thanks.

[ahinton]

Hi everyone, particularly Alistair.  New to all of this, but certainly not new to new music, or to extraordinary, visionary music from the beginning of the 20th century, and of course that includes
Sorabji.  I'm a concert pianist specializing in 20th-21st century music, and many composers are writing works for me.  All of the above not to "show off", but to indicate the context from which I am coming.
I have a question for you, Alistair.  In what piano work does Sorabji indicate clearly, FOR THE FIRST TIME, Ped. III, sostenuto pedal?  I own scores of the "Two Pieces for Piano" of 1918 and the 2nd Piano Sonata (1920), and in the latter are numerous Ped. III markings: for me, the first piano work in history to have them.  Are you aware of any earlier works with Ped. III markings?  It's a fascinating historical search to which I've been attentive for quite some time, and would greatly appreciate your input on this.  Many thanks.

I would have to do quite abit of checking before being absolutely certain of the correct answer to this question! Off the top of my head, the earliest Ped. III marking that I can recall in Sorabji appears on p.16 of the ms. of his Sonata I (1919) although, curiously, this is not reproduced in its published score (in which the equivalent passage is at the beginning of the 11/8 bar on the last system of p.18), but I don't in any case think that you'd be correct in implying that Sorabji was the first composer in history ever to include such markings - I'm sure that Busoni, for example, had used them on occasion earlier than that.

That said, the widespread ignorance of Ped. III is - to me, at least - little short of a pianistic scandal. The device has been around for at least 120 years, although the earliest ones did not permit legato pedalling whereas the redesigned version did (I used to have a 1915 Steinway B that had the more modern version but I don't know exactly when its design changed or even which manufacturer changed it, although I assume that this must have been researched and documented somewhere). The vast majority of pianists simply don't use it at all as a matter of "principle" (just as the vast majority of pianists would never think of using the una corda pedal during a passage marked forte, even if this was the best way to do it and what the composer had intended). Even Joseph Banowetz's excellent volume on pedalling gives it relatively scant coverage (although his understanding of it is both consummate and appropriately reflected in his performances). Ronald Stevenson has perhaps given more thought to it than most pianists; he has even on occasion incorporated pedalling "scores" beneath the music text in certain works for practice purposes, for the simple reason that, as a human being has but two feet, it was important to figure how they might best negotiate three pedals in the occasional passage where all three pedals in various combinations might be called upon. I was never a formal student of his (and I am not in any case a pianist) but he taught me more about this absurdly neglected device than anyone else ever has done . My Scottish Ballad for piano is to some extent a study in the use of the sostenuto pedal; unsurprisingly, perhaps, it was commissioned by, written for and first performed by Ronald Stevenson.

Best,

Alistair

[jaypiano]

Hi Alistair,

Yes, I know the topic well--lecture on it often.  And I also had concluded that the answer must lie somewhere in Busoni.  But despite owning a very large amount of his piano works, still have not found what I am looking for.  Which does not mean that it there, somewhere, in some piece I don't yet have.
Geoffrey Madge told me that in one of Busoni's Etudes there is probably a Ped. III marking.  Must find these some day.  Just too busy with 10,000,000 other projects. (Just this evening, in Paris, I gave a
lecture-concert on piano works of Copland, Cage, Feldman, Brown, Scelsi, Messiaen, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti.  Yes, I mentioned the Sorabji Ped. III situation.)
People (pianists) who don't know about playing forte while using una corda are total dolts.  And Ravel (and so many others) would not disagree with me.
Best,
Jay

[ahinton]

Further checking reveals that Sorabji specified the use of a piano with three pedals in his Third Piano Concerto (1917) and Fourth Piano Concerto (1918) but I have yet to check their scores to see if there are actual Ped. 3 directions anywhere in the solo parts.

Best,

Alistair