I can, and am prepared to, defend Scriabin.
I can, and am prepared to, defend Alkan.
I can, and am prepared to, defend Medtner.
I can, and am prepared to, defend Balakirev.
I can, and am prepared to, defend Godowsky.
I can, and am prepared to, defend Busoni.
Well, that's all very fine - except that, since you have already indicated that these composers are - and are generally recognised as - established major masters of piano composition (and for once you are correct), what "defence" do they need? (least of all from someone who makes such unfounded, cretinous and uncorroborated statements about Sorabji)...
The onus is on you to prove to us why the music of Sorabji is worthwhile.
Why so? It is no more up to me to do that than it is up to you to prove that the music of those other composers is worthwhile although, in the light of certain of your statements, it is certainly up to you to try to prove that it isn't.
Sorabji's music speaks - and indeed has to speak - for itself and, whenever it does so through the hands and minds of intelligent, gifted and sensitive performers, it speaks for itself and communicates to others with ample power and eloquence. To cite a single and perhaps most extreme example, Jonathan Powell presented an enormous all-Sorabji programme in the 2005 Radio France Montpellier Festival at which I had the honour and pleasure to be present (it was broadcast in full later the same year on Radio France). This recital may at first have seemed a daunting prospect even for seasoned Sorabjians, since it comprised the First Sonata (c.27 minutes) and
Gulistan (c.35 minutes), an interval, the world première of the variations
Il Grido del Gallino d'Oro (on a theme of Rimsky-Korsakov - c. 85 minutes), a second interval and finally Concerto per suonare da me solo (c.65 minutes) - in short, some 3½ hours of Sorabji spread across 60 years of his creative career and more than four hours of a very hot Sunday afternoon in the south of France when there were surely other things for people to do. If that wasn't enough, there were only around three people in the audience of some 160 who had ever previously heard a note of Sorabji's music, yet everyone present sat with rapt attention and serious concentration throughout and offered the indomitable Mr. Powell a richly deserved standing ovation at the end. If that is not an instance of Sorabji proving his work to be more than merely worthwhile, I have less than no idea what would be.
So far, nobody has been able to show why:
a) His music could not have been written by a deranged mental patient
b) His music's difficulties are more than difficulties for the sake of difficulties
c) His music is worth playing and thus
d) His music is worthy of being heard by ANY audience
For one thing, no one has yet been asked to do any of the above until now, but let's see where we go with this.
As far as a) is concerned, anyone able to show anything about this would require sufficient medical and musical qualifications and experience and a practical understanding of what music could or could not be written by deranged mental patients in order to be able to make a meaningful comparison between such examples (if any) and examples of the music of Sorabji; let's see how many such people come forward to offer us their wisdom on the subject and, in the meantime, ponder upon what qualifications and experience you may have in the fields of mental health and composition in order to make such a statement with such apparent confidence...
With b), the best evidence for this is surely that of the dedicated performers who, whilst obviously not being unaware of the challenges that this music often presents, never make a fuss about its difficulties, preferring instead to get on with the disciplined business of preparing performances of it; pianists who can play the most challenging music of Liszt, Alkan and Godowsky generally behave in like manner and, let's face it, some people with insufficient understanding of all of those composers have at one time or another complained, quite falsely, that they, too, wrote music containing difficulties for difficulty's sake.
Now to c), the "problem", as I have already indicated, is that only the music itself, when well performed, can demonstrate that it is so, in which case the "problem" is yours, simply because you don't like the music at all and you prefer not to accept that the performers regard it sufficiently highly to expend their time, talents and energies on it and others respond to it very positively. Jonathan Powell, in particular, has now committed around 20 hours' worth of Sorabji's music to his repertoire, from the piano parts to his songs at one end to
Opus Clavicembalisticum at the other; Mr Powell's other repertoire includes the Alkan Concerto and Symphonie, Busoni's
Fantasia Contrappuntistica, several Godowsky pieces including the
Fledermaus transcription, a number of Medtner's amd Rakhmaninov's works, Granados's
Goyescas and a considerable quantity of the works of Skryabin, on whom he is one of the world's leading living authorities; with such illustrious and proven credentials, it would surely be absurd to reject his judgement that Sorabji's music is so well worth playing that he has felt impelled to learn and perform so much of it.
that is all.
I'll believe that - with an immense sigh of relief - when I don't see it...
You have on occasion made some interesting and pertinent observations on other subjects in this forum; you would therefore be best advised to continue to do this rather than expose your meagre, threadbare, mean-spirited, uninformed and hopelessly childish observations on Sorabji as the utterly useless things that they are.
Best,
Alistair
Best,
Alistair
Topic: Sorabji question