Hamelin contra Kaikhosru

[ryguillian]

Let's try extracting gold from coal!

In another (not particularly useful) thread Alistair sez:

Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely (otherwise he would not have spent the time he did in editing some of his scores - something for which he has had no further time in recent years for obvious reasons), but he is not inclined to perform his music. He used to say that OC was unplayable as he believed the composer intended it to be played, although he openly changed his mind about that during Jonathan Powell's NYC performance of it almost five years ago.

Having talked with the great pianist about our dear K. S. S., I couldn't share Alistair's impression of Hamelin's opinion of Sorabji:

Saying that Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely seems like an overstatement to me. When I've talked to him about Sorabji he's usually been taken aback. When I asked him if he planned on recording more Sorabji he made a full body twitch, made direct eye contact, and said "Why Sorabji?!" while making a facial expression that looked like he'd just bit into a rancid lemon. He even went so far as to say that his good friend M.-A. Roberge had been "disillusioned" in respect to Sorabji's work. I think Hamelin was at one point entranced by Sorabji, but the spell is broken now... and he looks back on his entrancement as some youthful folly...

Retrouvailles, who's spoken to Hamelin seems to feel likewise:

I can corroborate this statement, sadly. I, too, have talked to Hamelin about recording more Sorabji. It all started when I asked him whether or not he learned Opus Clavicembalisticum. He said that the work was not worth learning, for it would take 10-15 years to get it to a performable state. He applauded the efforts of Jonathan Powell though, who, according to Hamelin, learned it in just 6 months. he also cited the audience size at Jonathan Powell's New York performance of the OC as proof that Sorabji isn't worth learning, saying that there were only 25 or so people in the audience. But I digress, for Sorabji does not belong in this thread (among many other composers mentioned before), given that he isn't atonal.

I've been troubled by Hamelin's relationship to Sorabji and his music for a while, ever since I asked him about the composer when I first met him a few years ago. Unlike Ian Pace, who dislikes (vehemently) Sorabji but hasn't performed any of Sorabji's works, Hamelin has recorded two of Sorabji's works (the Piano Sonata No. 1, and one of the Trois Pastiches) and, as Alistair points out, he also edited (by hand!) literally hundreds of pages of Sorabji's music, including Gulistān and the first dozen or so of the 100 Trancendental Studies. In addition, Hamelin wrote a tiny homage to Sorabji dedicated to M.-A. Roberge. And it seems, revealingly in retrospect, indicated by the booklet that comes with Hamelin's recording of the Sonata 1 that Hamelin planned on recording Sorabji's 2nd & 3rd sonatas at some point. I'm not sure, though, that any of this was a result of Hamelin's "respect" for Sorabji as Alistair posits.

Hamelin was probably first introduced to Sorabji by his father who was an amateur pianist. At first I'd guess Hamelin was probably intrigued by the complexity of Sorabji's music and its difficulty. Hamelin seems to have shed his complexity and difficulty fetishes somewhat recently, but he certainly seems to have possessed them in the past. And honestly, difficulty is probably the most seductive thing about Sorabji's music. Hamelin is also what I would call a very "honest" musician: one who wants to completely understand music that he plays. Some musicians have no problem playing things that can't grasp; in fact, just recently Tellef Johnson told us on this forum that he was content playing Sorabji's Sonata no. 2 comme le vent because he couldn't find much in the way of a coherent structure^*. Hamelin, I don't think, is willing to make such leaps.

I'd guess Hamelin started having issues with Sorabji's music when he started playing it. Maybe he was okay with the First Sonata as it's a relatively short piece, and more straightforward than a lot of Sorabji's music (e.g., it uses time signatures). But then when he proceeded to the bigger stuff I imagine he started to have real trouble. But he seems to have been willing to attempt to understand Sorabji's music and to aid in this he tried to "spruce up" Sorabji's work by editing it and seeing if he could get to the bottom of it (like writing out a poem that proceeds too fast for comprehension past one's untrustworthy eyes).  Maybe, Hamelin thought, there's some music behind all that magniloquent chicken scratch? But I in the end Marc decided not. When you spend a lot of time with a particular work of art or a composer you start to develop extreme opinions sometimes, especially if you can't "figure them out". Maybe it's a subtle type of frustration. I know the feeling well, and not just in regards to Sorabji's music, but also in regards to Ligeti's, especially the 2nd string quartet.

This is the best I can come towards a theory as to why Hamelin seems to have done a "180" in regards to Sorabji. And it's just a theory, but having struggled with Hamelin's relationship to Sorabji almost as much as I've struggled with Sorabji's music, it's the product of a lot of thought.

^* Coincidentally, I've asked Brian Ferneyhough about Sorabji's music too (noting that Opus Contra Naturam almost seemed like a title Sorabji would use) and he wrote:

"No, Sorabji was never an influence, mainly because one couldn't hear or see the stuff in those days. I always found him a bit perfumed for my taste, when I did get around to it. Form has always been central to what I do, so his 'let it all in and hang out' approach was not very sympathetic."

[thalbergmad]

I cannot imagine why anyone would want to slog their guts out for months to learn something,  with the possibility that the queue at the hot dog stand outside the concert hall would attract more people.

I am all for pianists playing neglected repetoire, but surely there has to be a reward for the effort.

Thal

[ctrastevere]

I am all for pianists playing neglected repetoire, but surely there has to be a reward for the effort.

Perhaps their own satisfaction is enough of a reward?

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps for Mr Hamelin it is no longer.

[ryguillian]

I cannot imagine why anyone would want to slog their guts out for months to learn something,  with the possibility that the queue at the hot dog stand outside the concert hall would attract more people.

I am all for pianists playing neglected repetoire, but surely there has to be a reward for the effort.

I'll attempt to stay on topic with what you wrote, even though it seems to be a general statement. Hamelin recently has started citing the number of people at Powell's NYC performance of Opus clavicembalisticum when asked about Sorabji. But I don't think this is really what discourages him... he's played other really bizarre repertoire (Roslavets, Ornstein, Bolcom, etc.) and I do not think the number of seats filled in a concert hall matters that much to him. And c'mon, Hamelin playing Sorabji would invariably attract a lot more people than Powell or somebody else playing Sorabji. If I heard Hamelin was playing Sorabji anywhere in the world, I'd go to that concert... I think this is just a discursive response by Hamelin, and not an actual reason for not wanting to play Sorabji's music.

[ahinton]

It's as well that a new thread has been created to discuss this, I think - although I'm not convinced that there's so much to discuss. Hamelin should speak for himself about his views about Sorabji, in terms of editing his music, performing it and others performing it. I do not subscribe to what you posted in the other thread about Marc-André Roberge, since although he must understandably feel grave disappointment that all his work on his Sorabji book has yet to come to fruition in print, this is not the same as "disillusionment", for which not only do you submit no actual evidence but which, more importantly, seems to be well and truly countered by his continuing research and editorial work which he surely would no longer undertake if he'd become that "disillusioned".

There were not "just 25" people in the audience for Jonathan Powell's OC performance in NYC; there were almost 100, of whom Marc-André Hamelin was one and I was another. Furthermore, although the main part of Jonathan's work in preparing it didn't extend much beyond six months, he had lived with the piece, just as John Ogdon had done before him, for most of his life. As to the numbers of people that might turn up to hear x, y or z playing Sorabji (or Schubert, or anyone else, for that matter), frankly that has more to do with how big a name x, y or z is, or is perceived to be; were Hamelin to play Sorabji in a major venue and Pollini to do the same on a different day, whom do you suppose might generate the greater ticket sales? Substitute the names Powell and Bloggs in an identical scenario, would you not suppose that Powell would generate more ticket sales because he happens to be better known than Bloggs and has a track record of performing this repertoire?

Performers who would seek to specialise in Sorabji - even if only because the amount of work involved is so great - are nuts, frankly; Jonathan Powell has, as I have observed before, played far more of it than anyone else in history yet he most emphatically does not devote time to Sorabji to the exclusion of the many other composers whose work he also wants to play (and I should know, being just one of those many). Sorabji himself would have deply distrusted any would-be "Sorabji specialist", since he regarded himself as part of a vast tradition of keyboard writing, as indeed he was.

I don't actually posit that Hamelin's original intent to record Sorabji's Sonatas 1, 2 & 3 was so much out of the respect that he only recently wrote to me that he still maintained for Sorabji's work, but out of a youthful enthusiasm that didn't then materialise into those recordings. That said, Jonathan Powell has played Sonatas 1 & 4 but likewise has expressed no interest in playing nos. 2 & 3. Each to his/her own, methinks.

I didn't claim that Hamelin had edited "literally hundreds of pages" of Sorabji's music; his editing work extended to a little less than 190 pages of his manuscript altogether, although this is no small amount, really.

Yes, Opus Contra Naturam does indeed sound rather bizarrely like a Sorabjian title, but there was never any likelihood that Ferneyhough would have been influenced by Sorabji, for they were two entirely different composers with vastly different interests and perspective.

That's just my two cents' worth...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think this is just a discursive response by Hamelin, and not an actual reason for not wanting to play Sorabji's music.

And I think that you may well have a point.

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

It's as well that a new thread has been created to discuss this, I think

I just wanted to keep what was worth saving out of that other thread.

- although I'm not convinced that there's so much to discuss.

And yet your response is six paragraphs long...

I do not subscribe to what you posted in the other thread about Marc-André Roberge, since althoug he must feel grave disappointment that all his work on his Sorabji book has yet to come to fruition in print

I was just repeating what Hamelin said to me. I don't have "proof" because I forgot to record our conversation...

Performers who would seek to specialise in Sorabji - even if only because the amount of work involved is so great - are nuts, frankly

Michael Habermann does indeed seem nuts to me.

[Sorabji] regarded himself as part of a vast tradition of keyboard writing, as indeed he was.

I assume you mean a vast tradition of great keyboard writing. I agree with you depending on your definition of "great": large, verily. Apex? Verily not. Ligeti's tiny (in comparison) keyboard output seems to me much more important in the history of the instrument.

I don't actually posit that Hamelin's original intent to record Sorabji's Sonatas 1, 2 & 3 was so much out of the respect that he only recently wrote to me that he still maintained for Sorabji's work, but out of a younthful enthusiasm that didn't then materialise into those recordings. That said, Jonathan Powell has played Sonatas 1 7 4 but likewise has expressed no interest in playing nos. 2 & 3. Each to his/her own, methinks.

What exactly did he write? I've tried to quote in spirit what he's said to me. I'd especially like to know since you earlier berate me for not supplying evidence. Quoting is really all we can do to let Hamelin speak for himself here. I mean, after all, if he's too busy to edit Sorabji manuscripts then surely he's too busy to join this forum. Aye?

[ahinton]

I just wanted to keep what was worth saving out of that other thread.

I submit that it's well worth keeping anything worth discussing out of that threadbare thread, frankly...

And yet your response is six paragraphs long...

Not only is the number of its paragraphs dependent upon the number of yours to which it was a response, it also does not confine itself to the thread topic per se so much as seek to elaborate a little on issues that may be seen to arise from it; in other words, I didn't and don't think that there's much to discuss specifically about H c S since H has said so little on that subject and, as you rightly observe, what he has had to say may well be more discursive than actualité in any case...

What exactly did he write? I've tried to quote in spirit what he's said to me. I'd especially like to know since you earlier berate me for not supplying evidence. Quoting is really all we can do to let Hamelin speak for himself here. I mean, after all, if he's too busy to edit Sorabji manuscripts then surely he's too busy to join this forum. Aye?

I did not "berate" you; merely pointing out a lack of specific evidence does not of itself constitute a beration! I do not especially like to quote from others' correspondence without their prior permission but, on this occasion, I think that I can do so with sufficient selectivity both to ensure due discretion but at the same time not hide the thrust of what was said. I was approached not so long ago about the possibility of Hamelin performing Sorabji at a festival and asked to contact him about it; suspecting in advance his views on the subject, I wrote
"I wrote back to him saying that I had doubts that you'd especially want to go play Sorabji"
and he (M-AH) responded
"You're certainly right about my relationship with Sorabji, admirative as you know I am of the man. And (the date concerned) is impossible I'm afraid. Right during that time there's...". Now I know that this doesn't say a lot, but it is this year, so may at least provide some up-to-datish flavour...

Best,

Alistair

[drpiano]

This is an interesting topic- as good as any for a first post!

I get the impression that Mr. Powell has demonstrated an ideal approach to learning and performing Sorabji's music, in particular the large scale works. He seems to be able to prepare such pieces in periods of time that are not so out of proportion to those required for learning other significant piano works, though I recognize that his efforts are substantial and commendable. The lesson seems to be that pianists with the right skill sets are able to incorporate large Sorabji works into their without ignoring all other music, and that this can be done in less time than might be imagined on a first glance at the score.

The point here is that I wonder to what degree such knowledge might have had on a young Mr. Hamelin. It is speculation, of course, but if he believed that learning OC would take part of a year (instead of more than a decade) , and not to the exclusion of all else, perhaps history would have been different.

The other issue is whether Sorabji's music, even played well, is capable of being appreciated by a wider audience than that which currently does so (wide being a relative term.) I think that Mr. Hamelin always tries to bring the music he plays, and the appreciation thereof, (including obscure works) to a larger number of people. Perhaps he feels that KSS does not have the potential, for any number of reasons, of generating interest beyond a small group. Such a belief would not imply that he does not feel that the music is worthwhile.

[ryguillian]

This is an interesting topic- as good as any for a first post!

I get the impression that Mr. Powell has demonstrated an ideal approach to learning and performing Sorabji's music, in particular the large scale works. He seems to be able to prepare such pieces in periods of time that are not so out of proportion to those required for learning other significant piano works, though I recognize that his efforts are substantial and commendable. The lesson seems to be that pianists with the right skill sets are able to incorporate large Sorabji works into their without ignoring all other music, and that this can be done in less time than might be imagined on a first glance at the score.

The point here is that I wonder to what degree such knowledge might have had on a young Mr. Hamelin. It is speculation, of course, but if he believed that learning OC would take part of a year (instead of more than a decade) , and not to the exclusion of all else, perhaps history would have been different.

The other issue is whether Sorabji's music, even played well, is capable of being appreciated by a wider audience than that which currently does so (wide being a relative term.) I think that Mr. Hamelin always tries to bring the music he plays, and the appreciation thereof, (including obscure works) to a larger number of people. Perhaps he feels that KSS does not have the potential, for any number of reasons, of generating interest beyond a small group. Such a belief would not imply that he does not feel that the music is worthwhile.

What Powell considers an "adequate performance" and what Hamelin considers an adequate performance aren't the same. I hate to make such a cheap shot, but look at those videos of Powell playing Alkan on YouTube. Hamelin would never let that kind of gloss performance slide. I've also heard a live recording of Powell playing Michael Finnissy's Piano Concerto No. 4 and this was also underwhelming. If Hamelin lowered his performance standards then he'd probably find it easier to play Sorabji's music à la Powell or à la Tellef even, but then he wouldn't really be Hamelin...

[zemyk4e]

In regards to the comparisons between Hamelin's and Powell's interpretations of the Alkan piece in question, I can honestly I will agree with the statement made above me. However, I don't believe Mr. Powell has lowered his standards for the music he decides to play. Having heard many performances by him, including the Finnissy 4th PC, I will attest to his amazing playing; Mr. Finnissy himself was quite impressed by it.

While many people disregard other interpretations due to the familiarity with *premiere* recordings or those of 'big names (Hamelin, Pace, Powell etc..), listening to many recordings will teach us that many pianists do bring their best when they perform, and they all bring unique interpretations.

Having heard Mr. Pace in Europe perform Finnissy's 6th PC , and then heard Finnissy himself play it, Pace's performance sucked; the same way Powell's apparently seems to be inferior to Hamelin's take on the Alkan symphony. However, over the years, one realizes that it is not about whether Powell should have practiced more or made something better of it, it's just that pianists have different interpretations; sometimes drastically different as was the case with Pace's and Finnissy's performances of the 6th PC. The 2 pianists just have completely different ideas on the music and how it should be played.

Everytime Hamelin plays something, it is without a doubt well prepared, which is something that seems to be understood by many just by listening because he overcomes technical difficulties quite easily, apparently. I believe as has been mentioned, that he does not bring anything to an audience that he feels he does not own completely. Had he ever recorded Sorabji's 2nd & 3rd piano sonatas, it would have been difficult just to please Sorabji fans themselves. It would  not be about his technique in that case, it would be the fact that those 2 sonatas are quite hard to make anything of. Mr. Johnson plays well, but as many of us have heard, the piece (2nd sonata) is really hard to connect and there are so very few obvious points of re-exposed material that sound familiar to us.

Powell has an amazing technique, and he plays some of the most demanding things out there. There are many pianists like him that bring quite 'odd' takes on certain composers. I can give G.D. Madge as an example, who plays Mosolov's 2 sonata with apparently little understanding of it and no confidence (same goes for Medtner), but then tackles something like Finnissy's 2nd PC with apparent ease. take a listen .sorry if the user sees this (i'm only borrowing to give an example xD).

I guess the only thing unanswered would be whether certain pianists actually don't care about presenting a piece in a more well-prepared form or do care. Should that be the case with certain pianists, then OMG! I hope they care about what the public hears. A user (John11inch) called Powell's performance "selfish". I'm assuming that's what many think as well. Did Powell care for that piece? hmmm....

cheers!

[drpiano]

I am not sure how much value there is any judgement based on single performances, which was non-professionally recorded and with questionable acoustics. However, even assuming for the present purpose that Hamelin has higher standards than Powell, this doesn't change my point. Powell has presented large-scale works by Sorabji in a way that allows the audience to really hear the work. Even 20 years ago, I think it was still an open question as to whether or not such performances were possible. Powell has performed several such large works, and has done so without playing Sorabji to the exclusion of all else. In other words, he has shown that 'it can be done.' My musing was related to how Hamelin might have approached things differently many years ago if he had had such an example before him. If he would have chosen to polish certain aspects to a greater degree, as you suggest, then that may or may not have added to the time required, but not to such degree as to alter the notion that 'it can be done.'

[ryguillian]

Attempting to reply en masse. I don't think Powell has lowered his standards; Hamelin's are just higher. And it can't be a result of "poor sound quality". Please. Watch any of the videos of Hamelin playing Alkan "live". Missed notes? Sure, sometimes... but far superior to Powell's Alkan that I've heard. To be fair, Powell's live recording of the Sorabji Sonata 1 is almost as good as Hamelin's studio recording, but it still seems sorta uncontrolled and clamorous. Powell also rolls so many chords that it's disruptive to texture and harmony (where it's sensible in Sorabji's music) in many cases. And, as a note on the live recordings, I found his tone to be harsh and his technique to be overly-cautious in most cases (with the exception of the climactic moments in the Toccata No. 1 and some moments in the Sonata 4).

[drpiano]

You won't get any argument from me about the quality of Hamelin's playing- there are few pianists I would consider to be anywhere near to his level. His Alkan recordings, in my opinion, are peerless. I have genuine admiration for Mr. Powell's work, but MAH is a legend.
 
In any event, there are numerous works by Sorabji that are approachable by many pianists: Mr. Hamelin could have easily performed and recorded such works, without devoting a decade or more of this attention to them. He hasn't, and that fact speaks for itself, even if it does so without betraying it's cause. I didn't mean to have suggested that simple practicality was the sole cause of MAH not playing more KSS. (Just to clarify my original post)

[ahinton]

There are some good points made here, particularly by "drpiano".

Seeking to compare the standards adhered to by Hamelin, Powell or any other pianist cannot, I fear, come without at least a whiff of gratuituosness; artists of that calibre would not do what they do without aspiring to and maintaining the highest standards. We know what Hamelin has achieved over the years and I, for one, believe that, although his facility, physical co-ordination and reflexes have assured his reputation for years, he has relatively rarely (and mainly more recently) sought to direct them at what is understood to be "standard repertoire", so that reputation has been enhanced for some (and perhaps compromised for some others with more conventional expectation) by his adventurousness; furthermore, I think that his playing has developed well in recent years and I find him a more engaging and involving pianist thanonce he was (and that is not in any sense to undermine his earlier achievements). Hamelin has certainly not ignored contemporary music altogether, but Powell's repertoire includes a good deal more of it than Hamelin's; whilst he does not wish to be regarded as "the Sorabji pianist", the very fact of his having performed so much of Sorabji's music has rather tended to make that epithet stick whether he or anyone else likes it or not; this factor has been enhanced by the fact that his Sorabjian achievements are unique, since no other performed has explored this catalogue in such depth, from Opus Clavicembalisticum to the piano parts of the songs and from a 1919 sonata to a 1979 variation set. Many have commented on how this music seems so logical and lucid in Powell's hands; he may perhaps lack the absolute extremes of dynamics at times, but he has held the rapt attention of audiences unfamiliar with such works as OC, the Fourth Sonata, Concerto per suonare da me solo, which would have been impossible had he not an immensely strong sense of direction, textural clarity and dramatic timing and impetus.

It is true that there are plenty of Sorabji pieces that Hamelin could have learnt and played without having to take vast chunks of time out of his performing career but, as we know, he has chosen largely to play other repertoire instead, but I'm not so sure that this is necessarily such a big deal, really; one doesn't hear Brendel playing Rakhmaninov, Pollini playing Busoni, Schiff playing Chopin, Argerich playing all sorts of things(!) and we don't hear Powell playing Brahms or Hamelin playing Sorabji. As I mentioned beore, if Hamelin wasn't interested in Sorabji, he would hardly have devoted the time he did to making editions of his work; I know that this is quite some time agonow, but his performing career has taken off over the years to the point that he has no time for that kind of work any more in any case - likewise, Powell is giving more performances these days, so he hasn't edited any Sorabji scores for a while either (although fortunately he is still composing and is currently working on his Ninth Piano Sonata).

In sum, I submit that the thread topic may reasonably be regarded as reading something into a situation that is not really present; my recent exchanges with Hamelin appear to corroborate my view here. Indeed, part of the thread appeared to be in danger of turning into "Hamelin contra Powell", which would be well out of order, for the world of pianism would be a far poorer place without either of them.

Best,

Alistair

[rabbity baxter]

Alistair
I think you're right about the Powell recordings not always capturing the extremes of dynamic that we can hear in some of Hamelin's. I guess he's just not that kind of pianist. But then rygullian's point about the live 1st Sonata sounding "uncontrolled" etc, surely brings into perspective the real differences between recordings of live concerts and studio recordings. So these extremes may well be better examined in their own contexts. Having made a cursory examination of the score, I think a rather "wild etc" interpretation of the 1st Sonata, as opposed to Hamelin's quite measured and, some would say, dry one, would not at all be at odds with the nature of the music. Any thoughts?

[ahinton]

Alistair
I think you're right about the Powell recordings not always capturing the extremes of dynamic that we can hear in some of Hamelin's. I guess he's just not that kind of pianist. But then rygullian's point about the live 1st Sonata sounding "uncontrolled" etc, surely brings into perspective the real differences between recordings of live concerts and studio recordings. So these extremes may well be better examined in their own contexts. Having made a cursory examination of the score, I think a rather "wild etc" interpretation of the 1st Sonata, as opposed to Hamelin's quite measured and, some would say, dry one, would not at all be at odds with the nature of the music. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure that those extremes are present in Hamelin either. Yes, of course one has to regard the "heat of the moment" of public performances and studio recording procedures differently, recognise that they are likely to bring about different kinds of result and therefore try to avoid comparing like with non-like. Hamelin's description of the First Sonata as a kind of "magic carpet ride" seems not particularly out of kilter with your take on how the piece should be put across, although a "wild" interpretation doesn't have to mean lack of control. Powell's performance of the same piece is, I would say, rather more measured and thoughtful than Hamelin's, though at the same time it has all the excitement in all the right places; he takes rather longer than Hamelin but there is no sense of dragging anywhere.

The first four of Sorabji's six sonatas (the actual first has no number) are single movement works of increasing size and scope; the last two (nos. 4 & 5) are multi-movement pieces of vast proportions by comparison and belong to the composer's maturity. All except the last have been performed and recorded (although no. 3 is not yet released); a new typeset edition of the last and by far the largest one (no. 5, Opus Archimagicum) is now in progress and a performance and recording are proposed at some point.

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

Powell's performance of [Sorabji's 1st piano sonata] is, I would say, rather more measured and thoughtful than Hamelin's, though at the same time it has all the excitement in all the right places; he takes rather longer than Hamelin but there is no sense of dragging anywhere.

You've certainly heard Powell play this piece more than I have. I've only heard a radio broadcast recording of Powell playing it at the Montpellier Festival. The performance wasn't even close to bad; Powell nails many parts of the piece and my jaw dropped when I heard him play the final "gigantic chords" section of the sonata even faster than M.-A. H.

I can't agree, however, that Powell's performance (from what I've heard) is "more measured and thoughtful than Hamelin's", though. Powell's playing in the recording seemed quite sloppy to me; Hamelin's playing seems etched in laser whereas Powell's seems as if it were executed with steel wool. Hamelin also brings out the sundry melodies much more clearly and his articulation and pedaling seem to me more sensible. 

What really irks me, though, and this is a general statement about Powell's playing: he rolls way too many chords! Already on the second beat of the Sonata 1 Powell rolls a chord. I don't have particularly huge hands, but I'm able to play this chord (albeit awkwardly) without rolling it. Rhythmically and texturally this just creates a ton of problems for me.

[rabbity baxter]

What really irks me, though, and this is a general statement about Powell's playing: he rolls way too many chords! Already on the second beat of the Sonata 1 Powell rolls a chord. I don't have particularly huge hands, but I'm able to play this chord (albeit awkwardly) without rolling it. Rhythmically and texturally this just creates a ton of problems for me.

HIP -- historically informed performance -- perhaps? Maybe someone here who has heard Sorabji get through his own pieces can let us know whether the composer "rolled" chords. As far as I'm aware, this piece was written around 1920 (??) when this practice was pretty common. I don't know the notes on the second beat of this piece, but many people can't stretch a tenth very easily. I remember hearing from a female pianist that one F. Kempf asked her why she was even bothering to play the piano when she could only reach a 9th. I think she pointed him in the direction of recordings made by De Larocha (spelling?) and Pires both of whom, we hear, had/have fairly small hands.

[ryguillian]

HIP -- historically informed performance -- perhaps? Maybe someone here who has heard Sorabji get through his own pieces can let us know whether the composer "rolled" chords. As far as I'm aware, this piece was written around 1920 (??) when this practice was pretty common. I don't know the notes on the second beat of this piece, but many people can't stretch a tenth very easily. I remember hearing from a female pianist that one F. Kempf asked her why she was even bothering to play the piano when she could only reach a 9th. I think she pointed him in the direction of recordings made by De Larocha (spelling?) and Pires both of whom, we hear, had/have fairly small hands.

Alistair has mentioned that Sorabji didn't have particularly large hands from what he remembers, but I think his span was decent because he tends to use somewhat awkward chords that require a decent span; although with Sorabji this could always be a product of his notorious compositional haste. Regardless of anatomical realities, whether or not it's "historically informed" matters little to me, even though I'm quite sure it's not. Hiding behind pseudo-archaeology is somewhat common in music (like people playing music on period instruments) and does little to make the music performed any better; any real musician knows this. I'm not accusing Powell of this, but simply lousy playing.

[gep]

this is a general statement about Powell's playing: he rolls way too many chords!

When I listened to Villa Tasca for the first times with the score in hand I was surprised at the amount of rolled chords (many) as opposed to the amount written in the score (few). However, when I had the pleasure of hearing JP play this piece live, I noticed afterwards (to my surprise) that I had not "heard" them, i.e. the music had flowed utterly natural. So I guess that JP's judgement in how he plays was better then mine. Which was no surprise!

Hiding behind pseudo-archaeology is somewhat common in music (like people playing music on period instruments) and does little to make the music performed any better; any real musician knows this. I'm not accusing Powell of this, but simply lousy playing.

There is everything against playing on period instruments for the mere sake of it, not does it make the audience hear the music "as Bach did", simply because wé have some more centuries' music in our ears, and we go to listen to the music in quite another way as did the audience in bach's (or any composer's) day. Having said that, the "old" composers did write for the instrument's sounds as they were at the time. This is why some music (at least) sounds better on period instruments because of timbre, volume, etc. A Baroque oboe, horn, violin etc sounds rather different than the modern ones.

I'm sorry, JP's playing being lousy?? I do not know why you say this (or perhaps I do, just wait a minute). What I've heard of it so far (mainly on CD, and in one happy instance live) was for me nothing less than utterly captivating, stimulating and exciting. You should be gratefull if you manage to reach half his level!
But considering the source of this judgement I should perhaps not be surprised, since the man (and I feel the buckets of brimstone coming) has a tendency to slash and burn everything and everyone, with the inevitable pairing to being extremely susceptible to the slightest hint of a possible critique comming HIS way. I'm remaining polite and say that jealousy in combination with a pathological level of inferiority complex is a sad thing.

Powell is still composing and is currently working on his Ninth Piano Sonata).

Now this is very nice news indeed! On his website is the 6th Sonata to be found, and I like it quite a bit. Quite curious to hear the other ones! Altarus, are you reading this?