Sorabji question

[thalbergmad]

composers deserve to be paid for what they do.

Of course, but they should accept like a lot of other "workers", that they should not get paid for shoddy and defective work.

Thal

[ahinton]

Of course, but they should accept like a lot of other "workers", that they should not get paid for shoddy and defective work.

I do not recall suggesting otherwise, although it might fairly be said that one person's view of shoddy and defective work in the field of contemporary "classical" music is rather more likely to be at variance with that of another than would be the case for plumbing and building work, social services work, medical work, etc.; the real point, nevertheless, seems to me to be that, in that field of contemporary "classical" music, the quality of the work and even the success of its reception may be less than no guide to the amounts that its composers may or may not receive for their pains...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am almost beginning to feel sorry for these poor hard up contemporary "classical" composers.

Perhaps like many of us they should consider holding down 2 jobs to survive, or in some cases, consider a career change.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am almost beginning to feel sorry for these poor hard up contemporary "classical" composers.

Sympathy, whilst no doubt welcome, doesn't pay the bills.

Perhaps like many of us they should consider holding down 2 jobs to survive,

Many of them already do derive their earned income from two or more sources but, whilst (in UK especially), the high cost of living and high taxation forces many people to pursue more than one occupation simultaneously, does that of itself make it a good idea? In any case, the point that the author of that BBC Music Magazine article was seeking to make was that most people would not necessarily expect their solicitor or accountant or their children's head teacher or even the local inspectors of taxes to have another job besides the one for which they have qualified. Would you expect your doctor to have another job?

or in some cases, consider a career change.

By "some cases", do you seek to imply those composers whose music you do not like? Whether or not that may be the case, why would you expect composers to consider a career change in order to be better paid but not expect solicitors, accountants, teachers, doctors, etc. to do so?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

why would you expect composers to consider a career change in order to be better paid but not expect solicitors, accountants, teachers, doctors, etc. to do so?

I don't expect composers to do anything, but anyone who is not earning a living out of a particular trade, might wish to reconsider their career path.

Doctors, solicitors and accountants harldy need to, but i would not put teachers in the same company.

Thal

[ahinton]

I don't expect composers to do anything, but anyone who is not earning a living out of a particular trade, might wish to reconsider their career path.

Thal, I really do think that you seem to be missing the point, for whatever reason or none. If you "don't expect composers to do anything", one may presume that you do not expect them to do what they do, which is compose and, if that really is your stance on the subject, from what source would you expect to derive the music that continues to concern and occupy you? The ever more distant past? Or what?

If earning a living out of composition were the only justification for doing it (which thankfully it is not), then either something is wrong with the system that prevents most composers from earning a living from their work or there is "something rotten in the state of composition" (as Shakespeare might have said in a quite different context). Tell us what you think; do you really believe that other professionals, including performing musicians, deserve to derive a living from their work and composers don't? If so, why? If not, what do you think should happen instead - and why and how?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Tell us what you think; do you really believe that other professionals, including performing musicians, deserve to derive a living from their work and composers don't? If so, why? If not, what do you think should happen instead - and why and how?

I have never seen a post laced with so many questions.

My stance is simple. Nobody "deserves" to derive a living from anything, unless their work is of acceptable quality to buyers in the marketplace.

In any job, if you are producing something that is crap and nobody wants it, you don't "deserve" to earn a living from it. Therefore, if a composer produces some 4 hour long piece of turd and tries to sell the score for £100, if it is not marketable, he does not "deserve" to earn a living from it.

I don't see why composers should be looked at any differently to other occupations.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have never seen a post laced with so many questions.

Directed at you, you mean? well, not, probably you haven't...

My stance is simple. Nobody "deserves" to derive a living from anything, unless their work is of acceptable quality to buyers in the marketplace.

Not as simple as you appear to assume, mon ami. "Buyers in the market place" may not necessarily recognise the worth of anything that is put into that market place straight away, whether it be a piece of music or any other invention - but that is not the whole point. Do please read Richard Morrison's article - in particular the part of it that refers to his having witnessed very successful premières of works that have been well attended and obviously well appreciated but which have written been by composers who are still struggling to make a living and you will hopefully appreciate that there is not necessarily an automatic corollary between satisfaction of the demands of the market place and what a composer may get.

In any job, if you are producing something that is crap and nobody wants it, you don't "deserve" to earn a living from it. Therefore, if a composer produces some 4 hour long piece of turd and tries to sell the score for £100, if it is not marketable, he does not "deserve" to earn a living from it.

See my remarks above in which I think that I have at least in part addressed and responded to this...

I don't see why composers should be looked at any differently to other occupations.

Indeed - that was pretty much the point that I was making, that Mr Morrison was making and which would remain a pertinent one whether or not either of us had acually made it at all...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

in particular the part of it that refers to his having witnessed very successful premières of works that have been well attended and obviously well appreciated but which have written been by composers who are still struggling to make a living and you will hopefully appreciate that there is not necessarily an automatic corollary between satisfaction of the demands of the market place and what a composer may get.

Well, they should promote themselves better then.

If you can fill a concert hall but not your pockets, you are not very financially astute.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, they should promote themselves better then.

If you can fill a concert hall but not your pockets, you are not very financially astute.

Thal

You just don't know how this works, do you? All the promotion in the world will not affect royalty rates payable in any country or the amount of time it takes for royalties to be remitted to the composer. Most composers do not put on their own concerts in any case and, if they did, they would need ample subsidy, for as many people know, classical concert box office receipts alone do not a profit make; if you find that hard to believe, perhaps you should try putting on a concert yourself!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You just don't know how this works, do you?

Obviously not and being a composer youself, you would know better than I, but I still do not see why anyone producing rubbish should be rewarded.

I certainly don't in my job.

Thal

[ahinton]

Obviously not and being a composer youself, you would know better than I, but I still do not see why anyone producing rubbish should be rewarded.

I certainly don't in my job.

Thal

No, indeed - but then it is only you who is specifically driving this by talk of the production of what you call "rubbish" whereas, in reality, the fate of composers' remuneration is not at all subject to whether or not any of them may have composed "rubbish", be that in your opinion, anyone else's opinion or no such opinion at all. As to people being rewarded for "rubbish", I note that you make no comparative reference to the City bonuses that have been awarded to people who have done far less to deserve them than any composer even of the worst conceivable rubbish may have done yet, to you, it's the composers who are at fault and who should accordingly not be bothered about having earned so little and waited so long to be paid for it. Since when did a City bigwig have to wait years for his/her bonus, justified or otherwise?

You really just do not get it, do you, Thal?!...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

Mr. Hinton, my recommendation would be for you to give up. Now I love Thal, but that man is stubborn and impenetrable, and he will go on keeping his opinions.

[thalbergmad]

Since when did a City bigwig have to wait years for his/her bonus, justified or otherwise?

The rewards "can" be high when there is much at stake and i know a couple of City Bigwigs who worked 90 hour weeks and were burnt out wrecks before they were 30.

Therefore, it is difficult to compare this to your "composers" who can carry on churning out their bilge until they are 96 if they live long enough.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Mr. Hinton, my recommendation would be for you to give up. Now I love Thal, but that man is stubborn and impenetrable, and he will go on keeping his opinions.

Aghh, love you too, but i am no more stubborn and impenetrable than "last word" Hinty, who will undoubtedly respond to my previous remark with crap puns, bad Latin and the latest "as Sorabji used to say".

Thal

[retrouvailles]

Oh who am I kidding, the two of you should take a recommendation from a certain Pianophilia member and form a comedy duo.

[ahinton]

Mr. Hinton, my recommendation would be for you to give up. Now I love Thal, but that man is stubborn and impenetrable, and he will go on keeping his opinions.

Oh, I don't know so much. He can certainly present a front of stubbornness and impenetrability, but I am sure that he also has the intelligence to learn something!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The rewards "can" be high when there is much at stake and i know a couple of City Bigwigs who worked 90 hour weeks and were burnt out wrecks before they were 30.

Therefore, it is difficult to compare this to your "composers" who can carry on churning out their bilge until they are 96 if they live long enough.

Which of these composers are "mine"? I don't own any composers, you know! I do own the rights to the work of two of them (one being me), but that's hardly the same thing, nor is it a very large number.

Some might say that there is quite a useful comparison to be made between people who get a lot of money for doing something useless and those who get far less for doing the same - and some composers probably work 90-hour weeks from time to time as well (especially if they are also doing other things besides composing), but never mind that for now; this "bilge" of which you write is not only a mere matter of your own personal (and sureloy somewhat ill-considered) opinion but you also use the term in a wholly indiscriminate way that might be seen to imply that you consider everything written these days and for the past I'm not sure quite how many years qualifies for such a description. I am not, of course, suggesting that there isn't abny "bilge" being written, but the suggestion that little if anything else is being written is either totally nonsensical or exceedingly depressing. And why 96? Do you, for example, consider that the music that Elliott Carter has composed in the four years since he attained that age is not "bilge"?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

crap puns,

Er, no (as you may have noticed).

bad Latin

Er, no (as you may have noticed).

and the latest "as Sorabji used to say"

Er, no (as you may have noticed).

Oh, dear; three wrongs in a row, which may constitue a hat-trick of incorrectitude but which certainly don't make a right; you couldn't possibly be wrong about that "bilge" as well, by chance?...

("Bollox!" - as Thal used to say)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

And why 96? Do you, for example, consider that the music that Elliott Carter has composed in the four years since he attained that age is not "bilge"?...

I can only assume that it is just as bad/good as the "stuff" he wrote in the previous 80. The small amount of his works i have listened to including the "typewriter sonata" played at this years Proms, has not given me the urge to listen to more.

I am only continuing posting in this thread to see if my reputation can make it into minus numbers. Therefore, i give my thanks to the little prick who deducts one point for just about every one of my posts.

Thal

[ahinton]

I can only assume that it is just as bad/good as the "stuff" he wrote in the previous 80. The small amount of his works i have listened to including the "typewriter sonata" played at this years Proms, has not given me the urge to listen to more.

I take you to mean the recent piano piece Caténaires, which I found quite intriguing; if you want to try a real Carter sonata, why not get to know the actual piano sonata that he wrote just after WWII; lots of key signatures, tonality, etc. - and no small understanding of the piano (especially considering that he is not a pianist) - it's very different to his more reent work, but still one of the great American piano sonatas and one must presume that it still meant something to him for him to want to revise in in the early 1980s. If none of it's for you, of course, then so be it.

I am only continuing posting in this thread to see if my reputation can make it into minus numbers. Therefore, i give my thanks to the little prick who deducts one point for just about every one of my posts.

I have no idea who that is, if anyone, but at least we now know that you are not posting in it in order to convince people of any of those things that you've been implying of late...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

if you want to try a real Carter sonata, why not get to know the actual piano sonata that he wrote just after WWII

Carter's solo piano works can pretty easily fit in the space of one CD, as proven by Ursula Oppens release this last year, which includes his two lengthy pieces (the sonata and Night Fantasies) and a number of shorter works.

A lot of my favorite piano work by Carter is nested in (or sitting at the forefront of) some of his major chamber works. I just recently picked up the Mode Records disc with his Quintet for Woodwinds & Piano and his Quintet for Strings & Piano. Having perused the scores for these works and other pieces like the Triple Duo, the piano elements seem just as daunting as the parts in his shorter solo works, perhaps moreso since the pianist has to deal with Carter's advanced rhythmic style in a group setting. He's definitely a composer whose work should be taken one step at a time. From my personal experience, I greatly enjoying hearing many of his earlier works, such as the piano sonata, the early woodwind quintet (the one without piano), and, most of all, the cello sonata (see my other post in the youtube thread). Later I dug into his recent works, including pieces like the 4th and 5th string quartets and things like Steep Steps, the oboe quartet, and the clarinet concerto. It takes considerably more patience, but the rewards are worth it - big time. I'm excited as hell about the recital I'm going to next week, where his newer Quintet for Clarinet and string quartet will be performed for the second time. The train broke down and made me miss the premiere at Julliard last spring and I thought I would have to wait much longer to see the piece played again. On the topic of challenging modern music, I'll also be attending a performance of Charles Wuorinen's 2nd piano quintet this Friday, played by Peter Serkin and the Brentano quartet. His works have been stunning me for years and I'm sure this one will deliver. Like Carter, Wuorinen seems to be a composer who most pianists (all musicians for that matter) don't get into very easily. All the negative unfounded horseshit that flies around about serialism makes it so easy to write off names like Wuorinen, Carter, Sessions, and Babbitt before anyone even hears them out. I'd be curious to hear more conversation around here about any of them, since they've all penned piano concertos and numerous sonatas and solo repertoire.

For the time being, it would also be nice to hear about Sorabji again.

[michel dvorsky]

I have never seen a post laced with so many questions.

My stance is simple. Nobody "deserves" to derive a living from anything, unless their work is of acceptable quality to buyers in the marketplace.

In any job, if you are producing something that is crap and nobody wants it, you don't "deserve" to earn a living from it. Therefore, if a composer produces some 4 hour long piece of turd and tries to sell the score for £100, if it is not marketable, he does not "deserve" to earn a living from it.

I don't see why composers should be looked at any differently to other occupations.

Thal

Spot on.

[michel dvorsky]

People who want to be wealthy/live comfortably should not become composers.  Even for the greats, there is no guarantee that they will be appreciated during their own lifetime (i.e., Schubert). 

The problem is this: everyone loves music.  Too many think love of music is enough to be a successful composer.  Success in composition requires talent, intelligence, discipline, and musical culture.   We can imagine that there are far more music majors at universities than the market really requires.  Many people I know who study music are nowhere near cut out to become a professional musician.

In short, composers should expect neither wealth nor fame.  We should not artificially encourage the proliferation of mediocre musicians into the marketplace.  We should make it so that those with the drive and the aptitude for it have the opportunity to pursue that line of work.  A safety net for musicians misalligns incentives.  This is probably why there are too many university professors writing publicly-subsidized, academic, incomprehensible trash that in no way benefits society at large. Competition and opportunity breeds the kinds of musicians society benefits from.

[ahinton]

People who want to be wealthy/live comfortably should not become composers.  Even for the greats, there is no guarantee that they will be appreciated during their own lifetime (i.e., Schubert). 

The problem is this: everyone loves music.  Too many think love of music is enough to be a successful composer.  Success in composition requires talent, intelligence, discipline, and musical culture.   We can imagine that there are far more music majors at universities than the market really requires.  Many people I know who study music are nowhere near cut out to become a professional musician.

In short, composers should expect neither wealth nor fame.  We should not artificially encourage the proliferation of mediocre musicians into the marketplace.  We should make it so that those with the drive and the aptitude for it have the opportunity to pursue that line of work.  A safety net for musicians misalligns incentives.  This is probably why there are too many university professors writing publicly-subsidized, academic, incomprehensible trash that in no way benefits society at large. Competition and opportunity breeds the kinds of musicians society benefits from.

Whilst you make some valid and pertinent points here, you too are missing the point at issue here - which is not about composers' expectations, rightful or otherwise, of fame and fortune but about other people's perceptions of the remunerations of professionals; most people expect lawyers, doctors, teachers, accountants, orchestral players, etc. to make a decent living from their work if they are any good at what they do, but many do not even know what happens to the composer and many accordingly might not even realise that the situation for them is usually so very different and, as Morrison's article confirms, it's not all about market requirement or performance success either. If enough composers get sufficiently discouraged from composing because it is so often such a loss-making and debt-acquiring exercise, we will soon be having to view professional music making as something of a museum-piece activity. Would you view that as a welcome prospect and, if not, what would you seek to have done about it?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

People who want to be wealthy/live comfortably should not become composers.  Even for the greats, there is no guarantee that they will be appreciated during their own lifetime (i.e., Schubert). 

The problem is this: everyone loves music.  Too many think love of music is enough to be a successful composer.  Success in composition requires talent, intelligence, discipline, and musical culture.   We can imagine that there are far more music majors at universities than the market really requires.  Many people I know who study music are nowhere near cut out to become a professional musician.

In short, composers should expect neither wealth nor fame.  We should not artificially encourage the proliferation of mediocre musicians into the marketplace.  We should make it so that those with the drive and the aptitude for it have the opportunity to pursue that line of work.  A safety net for musicians misalligns incentives.  This is probably why there are too many university professors writing publicly-subsidized, academic, incomprehensible trash that in no way benefits society at large. Competition and opportunity breeds the kinds of musicians society benefits from.

I really do agree with this, especially this sentence "We should not artificially encourage the proliferation of mediocre musicians into the marketplace. "

Surely composition (and for that matter performance) are acts which should, in an ideal world, be conducted purely for their own merits, and completely independently of pecuniary reward? In other words, a labour of love. I don't think that a composer should write a piece of music and then expect to get paid for it, simply because it is something they have worked on - even if it happens to be a masterpiece. I know composers need to eat, pay bills, etc, but I honestly think that if someone becomes a composer, and thinks that their music is going to subsidize their existence, they are either very naive or are going into composition for the wrong reasons.

If enough composers get sufficiently discouraged from composing because it is so often such a loss-making and debt-acquiring exercise, we will soon be having to view professional music making as something of a museum-piece activity. Would you view that as a welcome prospect and, if not, what would you seek to have done about it?

Best,

Alistair

Though you may not realise it, I suspect the answer to your question lies in the end of josef hoffmann, I mean michel dvorsky's post ie "We should make it so that those with the drive and the aptitude for it have the opportunity to pursue that line of work.  A safety net for musicians misalligns incentives.  This is probably why there are too many university professors writing publicly-subsidized, academic, incomprehensible trash that in no way benefits society at large. Competition and opportunity breeds the kinds of musicians society benefits from."

Incidentally, I was told by a musician of some standing (who is probably in a position to comment) that "almost no soloists nowadays live purely on performance income".

[jabbz]

Is that including or not including appearances/CD Sales?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I suspect from the context of the conversation that the income referred to was purely that gained from concerts. The likes of Zimerman, Mutter, etc of couse can charge huge fees for concerts, but the point was that they are very much the exception. The secondary point (which I did not make clear) was that many performing musicians earn far more from teaching than they can from other sources. I wouldn't have thought that appearance money or CD sales would amount to an especially large sum for any other than household names.

[jabbz]

Thanks for the clarification.

[ahinton]

I really do agree with this, especially this sentence "We should not artificially encourage the proliferation of mediocre musicians into the marketplace. "

Surely composition (and for that matter performance) are acts which should, in an ideal world, be conducted purely for their own merits, and completely independently of pecuniary reward? In other words, a labour of love. I don't think that a composer should write a piece of music and then expect to get paid for it, simply because it is something they have worked on - even if it happens to be a masterpiece. I know composers need to eat, pay bills, etc, but I honestly think that if someone becomes a composer, and thinks that their music is going to subsidize their existence, they are either very naive or are going into composition for the wrong reasons.

I don't disagree with anything about the principle here, but how else will a composer survive to do what he/she is devoted to doing unless he/she can live from it? I'll tell you how (although you and others already know) - it's by doing other things that pay the bills and burning midnight oil over the composition. Nothing wrong with that on occasion, but is that a justifiable general expectation - that we get our new music only by dint of people sitting up all might writing it when they've been doing something else all day to pay the bills?

Though you may not realise it, I suspect the answer to your question lies in the end of josef hoffmann, I mean michel dvorsky's post ie "We should make it so that those with the drive and the aptitude for it have the opportunity to pursue that line of work.  A safety net for musicians misalligns incentives.  This is probably why there are too many university professors writing publicly-subsidized, academic, incomprehensible trash that in no way benefits society at large. Competition and opportunity breeds the kinds of musicians society benefits from."

Fine - and I'm no advocate of such safety nets - but HOW sould "we" (whoever that may be) do this? I'm by no means certain, however, that "society" (whatever that may be) benefits only from "competition" where new composition is concerned.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A very belated reply:

I think part of the problem lies with society's perception of contemporary music and of classical music in general. Bankers and politicians, for example, are paid large sums of money to do whatever it is they "do", not because they are actually valuable to society, but because it is accepted (why?!) that they are necessary for society to function. As I'm sure you're aware, contemporary composers have no real perceived value to 99% of those who function within our market-based system. I don't see that society is going to change this view anytime soon; I imagine if a poll was conducted in the UK to name a living composer, it would be topped by Andrew Lloyd Webber (and most people would struggle to name any avant-garde figures).

Of course this is grossly unjust, but as long as this situation persists, I imagine the only ways a composer is going to acquire more than subsistence money from their works would be to be independently wealthy, have a patron/commission, or to become one of the accepted "big names" (please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you know more about this than I do!).

I suppose the flipside of this is that someone could easily turn round and say "well, what do composers expect; they're only indulging in a form of artistic and intellectual self-indulgence and why should they be paid for amusing themselves?" My feeling is that it is important that there are people out there who are exploring artistically, even if some probably are ultimately just being self-indulgent. We should be grateful that Beethoven and others left posterity the results of their "self-indulgence". I don't think state funding for composers is a good solution; I can just imagine the resulting politics and petty intrigues, with more time and energy being spent on them than on the actual music.

[thalbergmad]

I don't think state funding for composers is a good solution

Would never happen in England.

We spend millions on helping people to cycle as fast as possible wearing tights and to swim along a 50 metre pool as fast as possible, but i could not see any money going to composers, unless an event could be created in the 2012 Olympics.

And the Gold medal for the 10 minute etude goes to....................

Thal

[ahinton]

A very belated reply:

I think part of the problem lies with society's perception of contemporary music and of classical music in general. Bankers and politicians, for example, are paid large sums of money to do whatever it is they "do", not because they are actually valuable to society, but because it is accepted (why?!) that they are necessary for society to function. As I'm sure you're aware, contemporary composers have no real perceived value to 99% of those who function within our market-based system. I don't see that society is going to change this view anytime soon; I imagine if a poll was conducted in the UK to name a living composer, it would be topped by Andrew Lloyd Webber (and most people would struggle to name any avant-garde figures).

Of course this is grossly unjust, but as long as this situation persists, I imagine the only ways a composer is going to acquire more than subsistence money from their works would be to be independently wealthy, have a patron/commission, or to become one of the accepted "big names" (please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you know more about this than I do!).

I suppose the flipside of this is that someone could easily turn round and say "well, what do composers expect; they're only indulging in a form of artistic and intellectual self-indulgence and why should they be paid for amusing themselves?" My feeling is that it is important that there are people out there who are exploring artistically, even if some probably are ultimately just being self-indulgent. We should be grateful that Beethoven and others left posterity the results of their "self-indulgence". I don't think state funding for composers is a good solution; I can just imagine the resulting politics and petty intrigues, with more time and energy being spent on them than on the actual music.

I think that you have the essence of the problem here and I agree with much of what you write; the only concern that I have now is that, whilst a similarly large swathe of the general populace would almost certainly care but little more for the people that play in contemporary music ensembles (such as London Sinfonietta, Arditti Quartet, etc.) than they do for the contemporary composers whose music they play, I still suspect that even those uncaring people would probably assume that these performers expect to - and do - get paid decently for what they do, whereas the attitude towards the remuneration of the composers remains rather different.

As to "self-indulgence", it is difficult to see how anyone can avoid this to some extent if what they are charged (or charge themselves) to do is provide something from their own imagination; this, however, applies equally well to research pharmacologists as it does to composers.

Whilst I too believe that the notion of state funding is potentially subject to the risk of being a bad idea, it appears to have worked well (albeit uniquely, I guess) in Finland; it is surely only when such funding results in state interference that those petty intrigues that you mention might follow. Composers find it so difficult to secure sufficient funds for doing their work that my attitude has long been that funding from any legal source should surely be welcome, be that state, private, corporate, charitable or any other; it is almost certainly a healthier and more risk-free situation if no one funding source type takes precedence over any other.

Best,

Alistair

[bachundrach]

Wow!!! What an ongoing *on-line spat* betwixt Thal and Alistair.       Alistair presents a very reasoned rationale whilst Thal uses emotionally charged epithets such as *Bilge* and *Crap*.  Dear Thal, it is as if you have authorised yourself to pronounce the verdict of what is crap and bilge and everyone else has to tow the line in accordance with what you have adjudicated.   Maybe just a little more humility on your part would go a long way in encouraging debate instead of *turf wars*.

Humbly yours,

B&R

[thalbergmad]

I do not expect anyone to tow my line, nor would i want them to. Would be a pretty boring forum if everyone agreed with each other.

Bilge and crap are excellent descriptive words and i make no apology for using them.

Humbly bollox

Thal

[bachundrach]

I do not expect anyone to tow my line, nor would i want them to. Would be a pretty boring forum if everyone agreed with each other.

Bilge and crap are excellent descriptive words and i make no apology for using them.

Humbly bollox

Thal

My oh my - testy, aren't we?!  Yes, they are descriptive words but they are an emotional retort and not a part of reasoned debate.

Cheerio,

B&R

[bullitosaladino]

Composition is by no means self-indulgent.  It has always allowed us, through the personal view of the composer, a fuller understanding of humanity and our experiences.  We are all entitled to our opinions of music, but, from a practical stance, I really do not see what those who oppose Alistair are suggesting?  Starve composers, so the consumers can be lazy, and not work enough to earn the money to purchase a score from the Sorabji Archive - who slave away for what respect?

Also, I have a bone to pick with everyone who sees what is termed 'modern' music (which is not so modern anymore, seeing as how most people have not made peace with most of the music of the 20th century) as pointless or self-indulgent.  On a side note: music will not fail to express something of the time in which it was written: in the 20th century alone there were 2 World Wars, the Vietnam conflict, and many many other disastrous occurrences - many changes were going on.  Does it not seem reasonable that the music of this time was a bit chaotic?  Music is not a commodity - it is an art and it is currently one of great sacrifice.  Too many people see music as entertainment instead of communication of emotion and ideas. 

If anything, I believe the problem hear (namely the refusal to listen to music that doesn't immediately please the listener in someway) partly lies in the education systems - in which funding for the arts is usually the first to be cut (at least in America).  Not to mention that classical music remains a luxury in most countries - where pop music is easily affordable - however, the internet could, and has already, aided in the change from this situation (at least one good thing it has done for the future of composition). 

Also I tend to agree that it is everyone's right, even more-so, necessity to hear great music (even if they don't wish to hear it or do not understand it at first).  Music is as much of a discipline as any other field, but it is always evolving and recreating itself in the music of different composers.  I would certainly not call it a competition, and I don't believe many of the greats in the past thought of it this way.  It is much more a labor of creation.  You could call it self-indulgence - but I get a lot out of composers who I can hear have worked artfully to create a piece that had any real meaning to them. 

Considering the current state of composers, i would call the position more sacrificial than indulgent.

[naturlaut]

It would be a very very good sign for Sorabji if PDFs of his music were being circulated widely.

I'm sorry, Hinton, but this indeed has some truths in it.  The day when people spend hours searching up and down for Sorabji PDFs is the day the Sorabji Archive annouces its success - you might have to call a board meeting with your bankers and lawyers but the music has certainly won over.  Isn't that the aim of the SA?  I don't suppose your livelihood depends upon the sales of Sorabji scores...

[ahinton]

I'm sorry, Hinton, but this indeed has some truths in it.  The day when people spend hours searching up and down for Sorabji PDFs is the day the Sorabji Archive annouces its success - you might have to call a board meeting with your bankers and lawyers but the music has certainly won over.  Isn't that the aim of the SA?  I don't suppose your livelihood depends upon the sales of Sorabji scores...

No need to apologise! The problem is that most people who have approached us since we have been in existence have stated that they prefer to obtain this material in paper format; many have also told us that it easier both to stude and read at the piano in this format. .pdf files have their uses, of course, but it is well known that encrypting these is largely a waste of time, especially to the extent that it would prevent people from printing them off for their own use if they want to do this. Our livelihood does not depend entirely on the sales of scores, but quite a substantial proportion of it does.

Best,

Alistair

[Petter]

err

[naturlaut]

I noticed that the score of the second Alexis sutra (1984) is not available either in manuscript or type-set.  Why is that?

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps nobody wants it.

[naturlaut]

Perhaps nobody wants it.

That could very well be true, from a demand-supply perspective; but perhaps there is a reason more sophisticated as well? 

Conversely, why is there a greater demand for lesser works of great composers?  I mean, do we really need multiple renditions (in print and in recordings) of Mozart's or Liszt's early attempts?  Sometimes those a pretty bad, methink.  So perhaps it's not so much an issue of demand-and-supply.

[indutrial]

Conversely, why is there a greater demand for lesser works of great composers?  I mean, do we really need multiple renditions (in print and in recordings) of Mozart's or Liszt's early attempts?  Sometimes those a pretty bad, methink.  So perhaps it's not so much an issue of demand-and-supply.

Since when it availability of options any sort of problem? What does it matter how many oddities, curiosities, and juvenile/student works creep their way into the marketplace? These works are very useful for researchers and very interesting for enthusiasts. True, you won't find me listening to Mozart's childhood symphonies and trying to discover the secrets to the universe, but it might be interesting to a person who was curious to establish a broader biographical context for understanding the composer more fully. This reminds me of a really negative and mean-spirited review that I read about an album of 'Early Scriabin' works that some pianist assembled. The gist of the review was some bollocks about how worthless the material is as repertoire and how it was a bunch of half-baked Chopin rehashes that shouldn't have made it to the studio/rehearsal hall. I couldn't help but think that this person was epically missing the point and being a smug self-congratulatory moron. Was he expecting to hear a bunch of Black-Mass-esque pieces or examples of the 13-year-old Scriabin exploring the color harmonies that would figure into Mysterium in his late adulthood?

[naturlaut]

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with you.  The main focus of my argument does not lie in the floods of "interesting" "research" materials of early Mozart, but the lack of similarly iinteresting materials of lesser-known composers and works, such as, in this case, Sorabji and the piece that I brougt up.  There is clearly an imbalance that exists in our knowledge and curiosity of the repertoire.  When there is a following for early Scriabin (I, for one) there should be a following for Sorabji (again, yours truly).  The thing is, having a following does not make the object followed a thing of merit, but it reflects on the health of the society where knowledge and ignorance is implied.  As I've said before, I don't think we are at a time fit enough to arrive into a definitive conlusion about Sorabji, and to stubbornly do so (by fellow cognoscenti) is, at its best, obsintate reluctance, or at its worst, ignorance.  I am in no position, either musically or officially, to judge upon a composer who has an obscure yet clearly distinguished following (Powell and Hinton, among numerous others, are by no means "little people" by my definition).  If there is a thread here with hundreds of posts thrashing Sorabji, there should equally be a similar thread thrashing the early version(s) of Liszt Etudes.  However, we've all agreed that there are certainly values even in early Mozart or early Scriabin (regardless of their musical merits), then the works of Sorabji would certainly carry some meaning and values too.  You have already formed your opinions on the former, with great authority too, through hard work and diligence, no doubt; perhaps an equal amount of humility and dedication is similarly called for in the latter, before one forms a packaged, zip-locked opinion.

[thalbergmad]

Conversely, why is there a greater demand for lesser works of great composers?  I mean, do we really need multiple renditions (in print and in recordings) of Mozart's or Liszt's early attempts?  Sometimes those a pretty bad, methink.  So perhaps it's not so much an issue of demand-and-supply.

I guess that when something is already typeset it is easy to churn it out. I take it that the effort required to typeset a lot of Sorabji's works are considerable.

I agree that we do not really need multiple renditions of early Liszt and Mozart, but it is what they led to that makes them interesting.

Thal

[communist]

there are 135 posts and it was one question.

[ahinton]

I noticed that the score of the second Alexis sutra (1984) is not available either in manuscript or type-set.  Why is that?

I don't know how you noticed that! Both are available, both in ms. format and  in handwritten edited format (though not in typeset format yet).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I guess that when something is already typeset it is easy to churn it out. I take it that the effort required to typeset a lot of Sorabji's works are considerable.

"Is" considerable, not "are" considerable - but considerable nonetheless; that said, however, the effort required to typeset those two sutras is minuscule - they just don;t happen to have been done yet although, in the meantime, there is a handwritten edition by Chris Rice.

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

why is it given the title Opus Clavicembalisticum

Because that's the title Sorabji chose and what he wanted for the piece, even though one of the original versions opened in chords not single melodies like Haberman prefers in octaves, even.