Introducing contemporary music

[lontano]

There's no point in trying to define any sort of strata within the classical music world, be it in terms of aesthetic idealism, popular interest, etc... History has proven a million times over that applying such rubrics DOES NOT WORK and, moreover, serves no purpose in the long run. Like I've said a dozen times, the most talented and important classical musicians in this world always manage to look past all of the stratification and the beautiful vs. ugly/consonant vs. dissonant/right vs. wrong/good vs. evil BULLSH1T and simply abide by the standards of openness and hard work. One of the best examples I will cite a million times over is a musician like Irvine Arditti, whose repertoire pretty much has no boundaries. His quartet has performed works by Bach and Beethoven, as well as performing recent works by Carter, Ferneyhough, and Xenakis. They do it all. They work their asses off and, as a result, the classical music world is enriched by the proliferation of works new and old.

Obviously, people can and will have opinions about this or that. People will choose specialties and favorites amongst the wide selection of classical music that can be listened to. Fine...whatever. I just think it degrades the status of classical music when the people within its borders get too fired up bickering about the nonsense concerns mentioned above, since all the while the true classical music world is moving on without them.

Case in point: When Pierre Boulez took the reigns of the NY Philharmonic many years ago, there were more than a few disgruntled members of the orchestra (and too, the audiences) who felt that the maestro was pushing the boundaries of the orchestra's contemporary music repertoire beyond what was reasonable. However, they persevered and over the years produced some of the finest bodies of performances and recordings of 20th century music ever, and I doubt many people would look back at Boulez output with trepidation and dismay today.

Over and over, what is new and unknown (possibly considered unknowable by some) so often gets nasty criticism at the time, but posterity often reveals the brilliant quest of exploring new ground some years down the line. The musicians didn't leave the orchestra in protest and the concert-goers didn't stop attending performances. All in all, I think the majority of people eventually became familiar with the newer works. They may not really like them, but for the most part I believe they accept the fact that there is not only room for new music in the repertoire, but there must be room, lest we stagnate and become complacent in a world of musical redundancy. 

Lontano

[thalbergmad]

I still consider the main problem with assessing twentieth century music to be the tendency towards extremism. Too many people get overexcited about the outer rim of the avant-garde and end up shoving composers like Xenakis, Stockhausen, and Nono into everybody else's unprepared faces.

I think this is vey true and if these composers were the first taste someone had of the last half century or so, it could have a negative effect.

I am now easing myself in a little more gently especially as concerns 20th century piano concerti and have been firing off some strange orders to Amazon. They actually sent me an e mail that said "are you sure about this Thal". Its Lambert, Vaughan Williams, Rawsthorne & Rubbra for me this weekend.

Thal

[ahinton]

This is pianistimo tactics and i am not falling for it.

I am not aware that pianistimo ever had anything that could reasonably and credibly be described as "tactics" but, even if she did, I have never indulged in them - and what you may or may not fall for is therefore a matter for you alone.

"read through my last million words and prove me wrong"

Like her, you lack the balls to admit you are wrong and any effort would be wasted.

Leaving aside that rather obvious fact that it would be less than reasonable to expect her to have or to have had balls, you are seriously missing the point here; you are the one who made an accusation which you have yet to support with evidence, so it is hardly for me to prove anyone or anything right or wrong but it is for you to seek to prove that your accusation is valid. Over to you. By the way, God is not a contemporary composer...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

Its Lambert, Vaughan Williams, Rawsthorne & Rubbra for me this weekend.

Very good composers those are, and are well into the 20th century, to boot. See, Thal, you know more than you think you do about 20th century composition, for there's certainly nothing wrong with these guys! Although, I would have thought that Rawsthorne's idiom would be a little too gritty for you.

[ahinton]

Very good composers those are, and are well into the 20th century, to boot. See, Thal, you know more than you think you do about 20th century composition, for there's certainly nothing wrong with these guys! Although, I would have thought that Rawsthorne's idiom would be a little too gritty for you.

Frank Bridge after abit too much cognac, perhaps? Actually, Rawsthorne - especially as a chamber music composer - had a lot going for him. As to Rubbra, knowing Thal's thing about piano concertos, he might like to know that I have a copy of the miniature score of Rubbra's G major piano concerto (actually his second, though not published as such), affectionately inscribed by its composer to Sorabji...

Best,

Alistair

[scottmcc]

You may also like the Copland clarinet concerto

the hindemith I was ok with, but I really liked the copland (although the second half gets pretty weird--I'd have been ok stopping after the first half).  thanks! 

perhaps these kind of works are exactly what need to get more publicity, as they are far more accessible than the majority of the others mentioned earlier in this thread, and after all, this thread started as how to introduce people to new works.  by the way, if one is truly trying to attract new listeners to modern music, the responses found earlier in this thread aren't likely to help.

the rest of the thread seems to have rapidly devolved.  opinions, like most things in life, have varying degrees of merit, based on their source and their connection with reality, or lack thereof.  but I posit that there absolutely needs to be some kind of objective standard to apply to art.  if by merely labeling something as art it becomes somehow exalted, then we must also be able to label it as good, bad, ugly, beautiful, etc, or else it will all become meaningless.

[weissenberg2]

I knew I could find something you like 

[lontano]

Sometime in the 1970's pianist Robert Helps put together a score and record compilation of "New Music for the Piano", and it seems to me that were it around today, or someone else should take up the idea again, it would likely satisfy the general animosity some folks here foster toward "modernism" or just plain modern music. What made this collection special was that it covered many works by many composers in a fairly wide range of style and modernity. Most of the works were short and the bulk of them were of an intermediate level of technique, but there were some rather easy, catchy little numbers, as well as some very advanced works (I believe Babbit's "Partitions" was the most complex).

As far as I know, Aki Takahashi is the only other to do the same with her "Piano Space" LP set (and that was all difficult music, but wonderful!). No one else has attempted to take on a project of this sort since then (correct me if you know something), but it's a great idea that ought to be done periodically, allowing pianists, young and old, to discover the variety of music that exists out there, waiting to be discovered, and it might alleviate some of the angst that flows from those who are upset when an unexpected tone cluster or plucked string hits them up side the head.

Robert Helps has passed on, but there are a lot of fine pianists out there, many of whom are just re-recording the works of the previous generation, now and then tackling some new music, but it would be nice if someone decided to take a different route and release a new compilation.

Lontano

[mikey6]

If we can leave the people versus Thal debate aside please!
Is there any way in which my original post could be answered? (if it has, point me to it coz there's a lot to filter through here!)
All I want to do is lessen there ignorance - if that's possible....

[indutrial]

the rest of the thread seems to have rapidly devolved.  opinions, like most things in life, have varying degrees of merit, based on their source and their connection with reality, or lack thereof.  but I posit that there absolutely needs to be some kind of objective standard to apply to art.  if by merely labeling something as art it becomes somehow exalted, then we must also be able to label it as good, bad, ugly, beautiful, etc, or else it will all become meaningless.

Well, pardon the rest of us if the thread fails to meet your standard of message-board excellence. The thread will go where it goes. It's not any of our jobs to bottle-feed a bunch of lazy kids their daily dose of modern/contemporary music. I've come to realize that, 90% of the time, they'll spit it back and start sulking about the tonality, etc.. etc... Let them figure it out on their own.

You can spend all kinds of time trying to nail down slippery guidelines as to what defines good, bad, pretty, and ugly but not all of us are interested in attempting to achieve such an impossible and ultimately useless goal. Even if such a set of definitions could exist, it would take two days for someone somewhere to decide "wait a second, this is stupid" and put forth some idea that disregards and potentially overturns the objective standard.

[thalbergmad]

you are the one who made an accusation which you have yet to support with evidence

The evidence is there, but i cannot be bothered to find it.

End of story as far as i am concerned as this thread has resumed interesting debate.

Thal

[ahinton]

The evidence is there, but i cannot be bothered to find it.

End of story as far as i am concerned as this thread has resumed interesting debate.

It isn't, but at least you have decided to drop this one, which is a good thing and, no doubt, a great relief to many here; it is perhaps a pity that you and certain others put spanners in the works of that "interesting debate" prior to its resumption, but we'll let that one go. For the record, my route into music was very largely through Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono and Webern before I knew anything much else but, frankly, whatever my earliest musical experiences had been, I would still have deprecated (as I do) snobbery and contrived élitism in the form of assumed superiority of attitude towards and in respect of any kind of music, contemporary or otherwise, whenever and wherever I encountered it; as a matter of fact, that kind of thing tells one more about those with the attitude than it does about the music itself, so it does no one any favours, least of all the composers themselves, of which (as well you know) I am one; one of the great pleasures in life is finding that people whom one might not necessarily have expected to get anything much out of one's work actually find something in it that they take to heart and I can confirm that my experience over the years has taught me that there is almost alway a danger in making advance assumptions about who might like or dislike any music.

To return to the topic per se, I really believe that the very idea of introducing "contemporary music" (whatever that may be, but as though it is some kind of separate phenomenon) is fraught with dangers; why would one seek to "introduce" Carter to someone unfamiliar with his work any differently to the way in which one might introduce Chopin to someone unfamiliar with his?

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

why would one seek to "introduce" Carter to someone unfamiliar with his work any differently to the way in which one might introduce Chopin to someone unfamiliar with his?

Nothing against Carter, but people are more used to hearing something with a fairly obvious tonal center with common practice harmonies rather than something with an atonal musical language, metric modulations, all-interval chords, and other such devices that Carter has used in his music. Such things area drastic change from much of what a listener used to common practice music is used to, and they might dislike it and make a gross generalization that all "modern" music sounds as such and/or is "ugly" and/or "not music". When introducing one to Chopin, that person need not worry about the listener being torn out of their musical comfort zone in such a potentially drastic fashion. That isn't to say that all listeners not used to contemporary music will dislike Carter, however. It is just more likely that someone would dislike Carter over Chopin upon first hearing simply because of what that person is used to. Yes, I know, there are some listeners who came from rock or similar backgrounds who might like the Carter more easily, so, of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule or anything.

[ahinton]

Nothing against Carter, but people are more used to hearing something with a fairly obvious tonal center with common practice harmonies rather than something with an atonal musical language, metric modulations, all-interval chords, and other such devices that Carter has used in his music. Such things area drastic change from much of what a listener used to common practice music is used to, and they might dislike it and make a gross generalization that all "modern" music sounds as such and/or is "ugly" and/or "not music". When introducing one to Chopin, that person need not worry about the listener being torn out of their musical comfort zone in such a potentially drastic fashion. That isn't to say that all listeners not used to contemporary music will dislike Carter, however. It is just more likely that someone would dislike Carter over Chopin upon first hearing simply because of what that person is used to. Yes, I know, there are some listeners who came from rock or similar backgrounds who might like the Carter more easily, so, of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule or anything.

I accept your point as far as it goes, but mine to which it is a response was concerned to consider the introduction of music to people previously unfamiliar with it or with anything remotely akin to it, be the composer Carter or Chopin - in other words, there wouldn't in such cases be any such "comfort zone" in the first place. The innocent ear is a valuable phenomenon that is not, I think, to be underestimated; as I have mentioned before in a different context, when first I heard a Mozart piano concerto at the age of around 15, I found it very strange and puzzling as it sounded quite unlike any music that I had ever heard before, so whilst Mozart's music might be a part of some people's "comfort zone", it formed no part of mine at that time.

What might be interesting in Carter's case would be to introduce someone familiar with a certain amount of other composers' music from various eras first to his Piano Sonata (which is, of course, tonal), then move forward a quarter century to his Third String Quartet (a largely atonal work that is arguably one of the composer's most complex and impenetrable) and then a further quarter century to Symphonia: Sum Fluxę Pretium Spei as an illustration of how a composer's work can change and develop over the years and at all times embrace both the familiar and the unfamiliar. Likewise, one might well speculate on the effect of works such as the Polonaise-Fantaisie on those whose experience of Chopin extends no farther forward chronologically than his pre-Op. 10 Études pieces...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I was playing through some Schnittke the other day and once the clusters started, one of my friends remarked it could have been written by a child!
I had to try to think how to explain it but couldn't.  I can explain that the clusters are thematic, most are made out of the position your hand naturally falls onto the keyboard (I think that makes sense), the 12-tone system - but any amateur composer can do that.
Any comments/thoughts?

I thought it might be useful the quote the original post that started this thread

I think the best explanation is no explanation, actually. The best thing I can think of to introduce someone to “difficult” music (to some that’s anything more complex than, say, Fake That) encourage curiosity. If someone is only hostile to some music (as seems to be the case in what you mention in your post), then there is no possible way to “explain” the why and how. If someone has an attitude something like “that sound weird, why does he do that?”, the you could try and explain by example. You’re a pianist, so you could play things to make the “logic” perhaps clearer. But really, the music should teach it’s own “logic”. And to learn about music you need to get exposed to it. Starting to “teach” someone about contemporary music by dosing him with Ferneyhough or similar won’t work. If someone is interested to get to know something about modern music, and you know something about the music he/she likes now you might best try and guess what he/she might like or respond to and lend some CD’s (or point to some in the library), and if he/she is willing to listen open-mindedly you can discuss things later on, about what he/she did like or not like. And then use that to point perhaps to some more, different music. From a certain point he/she, when interested, will go snowball-to-avalanche in his/her own way.
My own “road to the classics” was started by getting force-fed classical pieces at school (killing all but the most persisted minded in that direction along the way), but was later fuelled by someone who had a big collection of classical LP’s from which I could lend whatever I liked. That learned me some names, some I liked better than other, which then lead to learning other names, etc, etc. That process is going on still today (you do not want to know how many CD’s I’ve got. I don’t want to know either!). There’s a small group of “furniture” audience I’m part of at a small venue where I go frequently, and usually at least one of us has some CD’s for at least one other “take that home and see if you like it!”. Very nice indeed!

In short: cherish and feed curiosity. And don't bother with people with their fingers in their ears...

All best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

To return to the topic per se

We are thankful for this.

Anyone heard any Reizenstein??

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In short: cherish and feed curiosity. And don't bother with people with their fingers in their ears...

Wise words and i am 100% behind you on this.

I now feed my curiosity every Saturday morning and have yet to do so with fingers in my ears.

Thal

[ahinton]

We are thankful for this.

Anyone heard any Reizenstein??

Yes, Indeed; in fact, I recall a disc (and LP, if I remember correctly) of his piano music some years ago played by the Irish pianist and composer Philip martin, who had been one of Reizenstein's students.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Wise words and i am 100% behind you on this.

I now feed my curiosity every Saturday morning and have yet to do so with fingers in my ears.l

I'm very much behind that, too - having said which, the one positive outcome of people putting fingers in their ears is that at least they cannot play instruments at the same time...

Best,

Alistair

[communist]

To answer the original question, I think you have to explain how those tone clusters and such are used as expertly as Schnittke used them, and indeed anyone can use the 12-tone system but Schnittke used it exceptionally well.

[ahinton]

To answer the original question, I think you have to explain how those tone clusters and such are used as expertly as Schnittke used them, and indeed anyone can use the 12-tone system but Schnittke used it exceptionally well.

I suppose that may in some cases depend on the extent to which the listener can understand what a tone cluster is and how it relates to other aspects of musical syntax - and I would submit that much the same goes for 12-note or other kinds of serialism to the extent that listeners can react both positively and negatively to music written within certain serial disciplines without knowing all that much about how those disciplines actually function in practice. I don't myself fully understand what all the procedural processes are in Elliott Carter's Third Quartet but I do know, after a good many listenings over almost 40 years, that I still don't care for the sound that it makes!

Best,

Alistair

[richard black]

To answer the OP's question with a parable, if one can call it that (and apologies if I've posted this already on PS - I've a feeling I have).....

Mendelssohn played a new piece to a friend. At the end he turned to the friend for reaction. The friend stood there for a couple of seconds looking uneasy and then said, 'I don't understand - what does it mean?'.

Mendelssohn didn't bat an eyelid, he just said, 'It means this' and played it again.

[ahinton]

To answer the OP's question with a parable, if one can call it that (and apologies if I've posted this already on PS - I've a feeling I have).....

Mendelssohn played a new piece to a friend. At the end he turned to the friend for reaction. The friend stood there for a couple of seconds looking uneasy and then said, 'I don't understand - what does it mean?'.

Mendelssohn didn't bat an eyelid, he just said, 'It means this' and played it again.

That rather reminds me of the barb credited to Vaughan Willimas who, when asked what one of his symphonies was "about", apparently answered "thirty-five minutes".

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

To answer the OP's question with a parable, if one can call it that (and apologies if I've posted this already on PS - I've a feeling I have).....

Mendelssohn played a new piece to a friend. At the end he turned to the friend for reaction. The friend stood there for a couple of seconds looking uneasy and then said, 'I don't understand - what does it mean?'.

Mendelssohn didn't bat an eyelid, he just said, 'It means this' and played it again.

That rather reminds me of the barb credited to Vaughan Willimas who, when asked what one of his symphonies was "about", apparently answered "thirty-five minutes".

Best,

Alistair

These examples might serve to illustrate why I am highly suspicious about certain modern composers who write reams of text telling the audience what they are supposed to hear in a piece of theirs that is to be performed. I think it shouldn’t matter one hoot how the piece came about in relation to how it is heard. The music should be about the music and as such in principle should be enough to appreciate it. Of course knowing some background things might enhance the experience and understanding, but basically the music should be able to stand on its own two feet.

The same applies to certain modern works of visual art, where the artist explains what one is supposed to see. Usually, the way the artist presents his/herself is a clue: the more weirdly dressed/behaved, the less value the art presented has.
“I see an empty canvas”
“It’s meant to represent the nullification of the city-dwelling single mother thinking about MacDonalds in the modern capitalistic environment”.
“Aha. But I see an empty canvas.”
“You’re a barbarian!”

gep

[thalbergmad]

These examples might serve to illustrate why I am highly suspicious about certain modern composers who write reams of text telling the audience what they are supposed to hear in a piece of theirs that is to be performed.

I am also suspicious of some performance instructions, in particular Berio and the diagram showing the required position of the instruments for his concerto for 2 pianos and orchestra.

Apparently, the pianos need to be 3 metres either side of the conducter. I wonder if the music would sound any different if they were only but 2 metres.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

I am also suspicious of some performance instructions, in particular Berio and the diagram showing the required position of the instruments for his concerto for 2 pianos and orchestra.

Apparently, the pianos need to be 3 metres either side of the conducter. I wonder if the music would sound any different if they were only but 2 metres.

Thal

Actually, this is quite understandable. In the 20th/21st centuries, an increasing number of composers are extremely conscious about the sound of the instruments, both in relation to each other and to the audience. There are quite a few pieces with various special effects, some of which might be antiphonal. The 3 meter distance that Berio suggests would possibly not make a difference if it were 2 meters instead. However, I would have to see the diagram, for there is probably more to that instruction. The precise positioning of the other instruments, however, is very important.

[ahinton]

I am also suspicious of some performance instructions, in particular Berio and the diagram showing the required position of the instruments for his concerto for 2 pianos and orchestra.

Apparently, the pianos need to be 3 metres either side of the conducter. I wonder if the music would sound any different if they were only but 2 metres.

Whilst I cannot give you a definitive answer on the particular Berio case that you cite, I can tell you (and others here) that, way back in the early 1920s, Delius pre-echoed "gep"'s remarks about the kind of verbal elaboration with which some composers have at various times been wont to seek to "decorate" some kind of hoped-for appreciation of their work; if I may, I will quote in extenso from a certain text that seems so much better to reflect certain compositional activities in the 1960s than even it may have done at the time it was written (which arguably just goes to demonstrate Delius's prescience):

Music that needs "explanation", that requires bolstering up with propaganda, always arouses the suspicion that(,) if left to stand on its own merits, it would very quickly collapse and be no more heard of.

Anyway, Thal, may I just here allow myself the indulgence to celebrate your involvement (even if only as a listener - a nevertheless vital and most important rōle) in certain recent music?! We're now getting real value from you when you write like this! - so let's have more where that came from!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Actually, this is quite understandable. In the 20th/21st centuries, an increasing number of composers are extremely conscious about the sound of the instruments, both in relation to each other and to the audience. There are quite a few pieces with various special effects, some of which might be antiphonal. The 3 meter distance that Berio suggests would possibly not make a difference if it were 2 meters instead. However, I would have to see the diagram, for there is probably more to that instruction. The precise positioning of the other instruments, however, is very important.

When my string quintet was recorded, I recall that there was quite abit of work done in the early stages in order to determine the precise ideal position for the soprano in the finale; I do not know how this might work out in a public performance context, since the work has yet to have a public performance, but that issue was certainly of no small relevance when recording it. That said, there is no instruction about this in the score...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Apologies to Mr Berio, i was incorrect.

He says approx 3 metres

Thal

[thalbergmad]

When my string quintet was recorded, I recall that there was quite abit of work done in the early stages in order to determine the precise ideal position for the soprano in the finale; I do not know how this might work out in a public performance context, since the work has yet to have a public performance, but that issue was certainly of no small relevance when recording it. That said, there is no instruction about this in the score...

Best,

Alistair

































































Best,

Alistair

A large amount of missing text???

[retrouvailles]

Yeah, Thal, the spatial arrangement of the pianos now makes perfect sense. I have always thought that the pianos were rather far apart from listening to the recording. But yes, if the arrangement were not to be specified by Berio, the piece would have a totally different aural effect. If they were interlocking, for example, the individual parts would bleed together and it would no longer sound like "two pieces of music going on at once".

[thalbergmad]

Thanks old chap.

I will listen to it again with fresh ears.

Thal

[ahinton]

A large amount of missing text???

No - none at all, in fact - and I have less than no idea how what you referred to came about; anyway, I have now edited the post to what it was supposed to be and thank you for drawing this most peculiar manifestation.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Due to the nature of your post, i was half expecting an instrumentation diagram of your string quintet.

Thal

[ahinton]

Due to the nature of your post, i was half expecting an instrumentation diagram of your string quintet.

Only half? Then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I do so in this particular instance only because it's not really relevant in the present context at least to the extent that there was never any such diagrammatic prescription in my hand either in the score itself or in any accompanying verbiage (the latter fact of which is hardly surprisng, since when I wrote the piece there was no such accompanying verbiage!)...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Apologies to Mr Berio, i was incorrect.

He says approx 3 metres

Thal

Thal! You amaze me! And us all! Not only do you have the score of the Carter Concerto, but also the Berio! Really, you should get out of the closet re your love of VERY modern music!
What more do you have for us? Skalkottas III? Cage? Xenakis?

Sorabji??

I start to suspect you are a regular (if secretive) visitor to the Kürten Stockhausen courses....

 

gep

[retrouvailles]

Thal! You amaze me! And us all! Not only do you have the score of the Carter Concerto, but also the Berio! Really, you should get out of the closet re your love of VERY modern music!

Or rather, he should share the scores with those who actually like it, heh. Then again, having the score to a work can really help a person like a difficult work. So, it should be beneficial to Thal to have these scores. Although, I for the life of me cannot think why he would have the scores to such difficult music as the Carter. For some reason, I don't find the Berio that difficult. I liked it the first time I heard it.

[thalbergmad]

What more do you have for us? Skalkottas III? Cage? Xenakis?

On me shopping list, yes and yes in that order. I think Skalkottas III is the only one that has been published if memory serves. The rest can be ordered from the SSF.

I have an illness where if i see the word concerto or piano and orchestra, i buy the score.

Over the last 2 weeks, i appear to have bought Williamson, Hoddinott, Messian, Milhaud, Hollingsworth, Rautavarra, Shchedrin and Baines. There are large gaps in my files for 20th century works that i wished to address.

There is no cure.

Thal

[gep]

On me shopping list, yes and yes in that order. I think Skalkottas III is the only one that has been published if memory serves. The rest can be ordered from the SSF.

I have an illness where if i see the word concerto or piano and orchestra, i buy the score.

Over the last 2 weeks, i appear to have bought Williamson, Hoddinott, Messian, Milhaud, Hollingsworth, Rautavarra, Shchedrin and Baines. There are large gaps in my files for 20th century works that i wished to address.

There is no cure.

Thal

Messiaen? Didn't write a piano concerto, so I'd guess you refer to either the Tutangalīlā, or the Concert a Quattre?
You'd be pleased to hear that Sorabji's Symphonic Variations for Piano and Orchestra are currently being typeset! If yoi=u like, at www.sorabji-files.com you can hear about 2/3 of that work in "virtual performance". I like it!

I'm a completist. If I have 2 symphonies from a set of 9, I must have the other 7 too. Seems to be no cure either...
Haydn symphonies, baryton trios, string quartets and sonatas for ex.....

gep

[ahinton]

On me shopping list, yes and yes in that order. I think Skalkottas III is the only one that has been published if memory serves. The rest can be ordered from the SSF.

I have an illness where if i see the word concerto or piano and orchestra, i buy the score.

...

There is no cure.

From which particular form of that illness do you (not) suffer? The usual symptoms of the classic version customarily manifest themselves in feverish acquisition of pieces for piano and orchestra specificially entitled concerto but there are well documented variants in which this compulsory acquisitiveness extends also to other works for the same medium; I wonder, for example, if your collection includes Variations for piano and orchestra (1995) by a Scottish composer who posts on these boards (not that this piece is available for general upload and cyber-distribution, but...)

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Hmm, neither Stevenson not MacMillan nor Davies wrote Piano Variations at that time.

Must have missed someone; quite easily done, since I do not nearly know all Scottish composers.

There is one English composer who wrote a piece with that title at that time, though....

[thalbergmad]

Messiaen? Didn't write a piano concerto, so I'd guess you refer to either the Tutangalīlā, or the Concert a Quattre?

I will find out when it arrives. Regretfully i do not keep very accurate records of what i buy, but none of the names you mention seems to ring a bell.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I wonder, for example, if your collection includes Variations for piano and orchestra (1995) by a Scottish composer who posts on these boards (not that this piece is available for general upload and cyber-distribution, but...)

I have a rather large concerto score by an A Hinton.

I do not think there is any relation to anyone who posts on these boards.

Thal

[cygnusdei]

A litmus test that can be applicable to any notated music: if you alter any one note, is it acceptable? (the composer is the final arbiter). If yes, that one note is not essential to the complexity.

An easy example would be trills - the essence of the complexity is not so much the individual notes but the sound effects (of course taking into account starting note, grace notes, etc.)

Here is a fun example:

[ahinton]

Hmm, neither Stevenson not MacMillan nor Davies wrote Piano Variations at that time.

Must have missed someone; quite easily done, since I do not nearly know all Scottish composers.

There is one English composer who wrote a piece with that title at that time, though....

Who might that be? Please enlighten me!

Thanks!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I have a rather large concerto score by an A Hinton.

I do not think there is any relation to anyone who posts on these boards.

You are correct; furthermore, I believe that Arthur Hinton (to whom I think you refer) was English in any case.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I have a rather large concerto score by an A Hinton.

I do not think there is any relation to anyone who posts on these boards.

Thal

Considering this latest bit of confessional info (you bought it because of your Concerto Purchasing Syndrome, CPS for short, yes?), I start to wonder if you have Sorabji's 8 numbered and two unnumberd piano concerti, and/or his Symphonic Variations and Symphony no. 1 (which apparently contains a massive solo-piano part)?

gep

[gep]

Arthur Hinton

Intriguing. Any connection?

[gep]

Who might that be? Please enlighten me!

Thanks!

Best,

Alistair

Well, not only did you live in England at that time, but also wrote that piece there. An English piece by an English composer, QED!
(Very much  !!!)

gep

[ahinton]

Intriguing. Any connection?

No - as I answered in reply #145!

Best,

Alistair