For Fans of Alkan/Scriabin/Sorabji

[minor9th]

Have you heard of Clint Tibbs and his "Alscribjiani" composition/improvisation? It's about an hour long. Here's part of the third movement:

PL&index=1

[retrouvailles]

I am still at a loss as to what to think about this piece, after having it for a few years now. It definitely has some great ideas, but, as the nature of some improvisations, it is rather incoherent and rambling. It is definitely impressive for that same reason, though.

[minor9th]

I'm expecting my copy of the CD any day now. It's interesting that he doesn't consider himself a pianist!

[minor9th]

It arrived and it's crap! He seems to be aimlessly noodling around the keyboard. I don't like improvised music--I should never have bought it. Mine's for sale if anyone wants it! ($10)

[thalbergmad]

He seems to be aimlessly noodling around the keyboard.

Does that not apply to a lot of contemporary music??

Thal

[retrouvailles]

Does that not apply to a lot of contemporary music??

Thal

It certainly applies to some of the worst of it. Not to most of the great stuff, though.

[gep]

Does that not apply to a lot of contemporary music??

Thal

Some certainly. Especially among the more pretentious and pompous ones. I could list the later Stockhausen among them (as the composer of Licht for instance. Aus den sieben Tagen isn't even a composition for me), but some idolise him (which is perfectly fine by me). But not just the composers of some highly complex music, for I would consider someone like (Philip) Glass a composer who spins notes by the yard of not mile. Or the ones suffering from a deluded sense of "must be original!!", so what they write cannot sound like anything else and often it indeed doesn't sound like anything much. I distrust any music of which the composer finds it necessary to explain at lenght what we're supposed to hear (which is something different from a composer explaining how his/her music is worked out, based on, etc.). Music that cannot stand on its two own feet is usually not very strong!
But note that in all times past there were always such who considered (the then) contemporary music as note-spinning (at best). "I'd pay if this racket would stop!" (Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, première). "Hide, my child, for the Phillistines are upon us" (Bach, 1st performance of the Matthäus Passion).
Of course, if you sample any contemporary music seriously, and find out it doens't work for you, that's is merely developing a taste. Nothing wrong with that! What I detest is something like:
"I don't like modern music"
"Have you listened to any then?"
"No!"
"Why??"
"Because I don't like it".

Keep on listening!

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

Some certainly. Especially among the more pretentious and pompous ones. I could list the later Stockhausen among them (as the composer of Licht for instance. Aus den sieben Tagen isn't even a composition for me), but some idolise him (which is perfectly fine by me). But not just the composers of some highly complex music, for I would consider someone like (Philip) Glass a composer who spins notes by the yard of not mile. Or the ones suffering from a deluded sense of "must be original!!", so what they write cannot sound like anything else and often it indeed doesn't sound like anything much. I distrust any music of which the composer finds it necessary to explain at lenght what we're supposed to hear (which is something different from a composer explaining how his/her music is worked out, based on, etc.). Music that cannot stand on its two own feet is usually not very strong!
But note that in all times past there were always such who considered (the then) contemporary music as note-spinning (at best). "I'd pay if this racket would stop!" (Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, première). "Hide, my child, for the Phillistines are upon us" (Bach, 1st performance of the Matthäus Passion).
Of course, if you sample any contemporary music seriously, and find out it doens't work for you, that's is merely developing a taste. Nothing wrong with that! What I detest is something like:
"I don't like modern music"
"Have you listened to any then?"
"No!"
"Why??"
"Because I don't like it".

Keep on listening!

All good points. They are also simple and basic points (not that I am seeking to undermine either you or them in so saying), but it seems that they nevertheless need to be stated here for the benefit of some who appear not already to understand them and the principles enshrined in them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

They are also simple and basic points

Thank goodness for that.

Gep has obviously worked out my level and that "i don't know much" and writes accordingly.

For that, i am most grateful.

Thal

[gep]

Thank goodness for that.

Gep has obviously worked out my level and that "i don't know much" and writes accordingly.

For that, i am most grateful.

Thal

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here... I do not think I implied that you "don't know much" (let alone I wrote or wish to write "accordingly"!), for I think you knowledge rather vastly outstrips mine in at least several areas (such as the "romantic piano music", where I see you sometimes positively listing composers that are unknown to me).
So what is it then that I have "worked out" about your "level"? I think I have, by now, at least some hunch of your tastes, as you may have about mine. I know you listen seriously to music, including music unknown to you and from times and styles not always to your tastes. As do I.
So we're both roughly on the same "level" I think, be it that the contents of my or your "level" may differ in places. Which is perfectly fine!
Or am I just misreading English again, the finer nuances of expression therein sometimes getting the worse of me...

gep

[orangesodaking]

I wish people would group Alkan more with his 19th century contemporaries and less with 20th century composers...

And, along with my opinion of Opus Clavicembalisiticum (spelling?), it has a few nice parts but overall I wasn't a fan of it.