Most Difficult Toccata (non-baroque)

[yodaofpiano]

Hopefully this post hasn't already been done. 

[richard black]

Busoni?

[retrouvailles]

Why only those choices? I can name a few toccatas more difficult than those.

[sordel]

It's fairly obvious that the correct answer, once found, will not please Thal. 

[yodaofpiano]

if you can think of more toccatas that I should post in the poll please list them out. Thanks

[ahinton]

It's fairly obvious that the correct answer, once found, will not please Thal. 

...especially if it's the second or fourth by Sorabji...

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

...especially if it's the second or fourth by Sorabji...

If you really want to annoy him, suggest the third.

[thalbergmad]

Lourie and Sezelenyi look a bit cruel for the pianist and Heider even more so. I anticipate they were plinkers so were just attempting to show off, but I have not heard any recordings. I personally could not play the Finke Toccata for left hand with both hands.

No doubt the Sorabjians will tell us that about the toccatas written by their hero. Perhaps there are some that are written on 18 staves, are  4 hours long and were premiered at a squash court in London in front of an audience of 3.

Thal

[pianisten1989]

What do you mean 3, who would attend?! Oh right, their parents, to tell them that they are the absolute bestest in the world!!!

However, I think you only should count pieces that are actual music...

[thalbergmad]

However, I think you only should count pieces that are actual music...

Agreed. Pointless tinkering that could be duplicated by someone having an epileptic fit at the piano should not be counted.

Thal

[sordel]

No doubt the Sorabjians will tell us that about the toccatas written by their hero. Perhaps there are some that are written on 18 staves, are  4 hours long and were premiered at a squash court in London in front of an audience of 3.

You fancy yourself a scholar of the arcane, Thal, but you should really have realised by now that the genuine plinky masterpieces are all unperformed and would most likely be unperformable if they weren't already untranscribable and also quite possibly lost.

That said, Saturday from Licht was performed this year, so it seems unlikely that any barrier to performance is actually insurmountable.

[thalbergmad]

That said, Saturday from Licht was performed this year, so it seems unlikely that any barrier to performance is actually insurmountable.

Apart from finding people who might be remotely interested, I agree.

Thal

[sordel]

Apart from finding people who might be remotely interested

Really? I'm confident that a buyer can be found for snake oil of any brand. And I speak as someone who has a medicine cabinet full of it.

[thalbergmad]

Good, I look forward to the complete Toccatas of Sorabji CD.

Only 1 person will need to buy it anyway. It will be all over the internet within a few hours for all the legion of fans to download.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

Well, the first toccata has already been recorded, and it takes up a whole CD (about 70 minutes or so). The complete set would be rather huge, I would think. I would buy it, though, just as long as it doesn't require me to sell a kidney to buy it.

[thalbergmad]

70 minutes, what bliss that must be.

Is this random tinkling a part of it??

Thal

[ahinton]

No doubt the Sorabjians will tell us that about the toccatas written by their hero. Perhaps there are some that are written on 18 staves, are  4 hours long and were premiered at a squash court in London in front of an audience of 3.

Only one has mentioned them. There is no such "perhaps". None are written on anything like as many staves. None is 4 hours long. The only one so far to be performed was premièred in the British Music Information Centre, London - hardly the most obvious place to go for a squash match - before an audience of far more than 3.

If you've no useful input into the subject of Sorabji's toccatas for piano, Thal, why not leave it to others who do if so they choose?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

before an audience of far more than 3.

4??

[ahinton]

70 minutes, what bliss that must be.

Is this random tinkling a part of it??

No. In both cases. It is neither "random tinkling" (or even "plinkling") nor is it an extract from the work mentioned. It's by no means one of Sorabji's better pieces. It's certainly in no wise on a par with Toccata No. I (the piece previously mentioned). Please try to do at least some homework, Thal, before you make the comments that you do.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

4??

No. And please don't bother to ask for the total audience figure, as when I attend concerts (as I did in this particular case) I don't go around counting the number of people in the audience.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If you've no useful input into the subject of Sorabji's toccatas for piano, Thal, why not leave it to others who do if so they choose?

Yeh, I will just sit back and watch this twaddle take over another thread.

On the other hand, now that Sorabji has been mentioned and the thread creator is aware of his toccatas, perhaps further discussion might be better in the forum dedicated to his music.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

No. And please don't bother to ask for the total audience figure, as when I attend concerts (as I did in this particular case) I don't go around counting the number of people in the audience.

Why not?. It won't take long and it would be unlikely that you would run out of fingers.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

70 minutes, what bliss that must be.

Is this random tinkling a part of it??

Thal

No, that is another earlier toccata, which came before the toccata no. 1. Also, it isn't random tinkling. Also, yes, it is rather blissful.

[gerryjay]

Amazing discussion. Sorabji is a composer that never stops to amuse me, and the discussion around him even more.

Anyway, I'm writing for another reason: I was to create a thread about why BMIC close their online resources, or to ask where they are hiding it now. Someone can help me? It was a most valuable source of information, but now is dead. Or am I missing something?

Best regards,
Jay.

[ahinton]

all the legion of fans

Do I detect a whiff of inconsistency there?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji is a composer that never stops to amuse me, and the discussion around him even more.

Never ceases to amuse me either.

Hinty is offline at the moment, no doubt celebrating his 2,000th free plug.

Thal

[djealnla]

What do you mean 3, who would attend?! Oh right, their parents, to tell them that they are the absolute bestest in the world!!!

However, I think you only should count pieces that are actual music...

You really don't get bored of posting this type of garbage, do you?

[thalbergmad]

 

[gep]

Thal, I cannot help but wonder where your obsessive obsession with Sorabji comes from. Truly no thread can be started without you instantly posting 1,000 posts about how you despise Sorabji and hate every single recording of his music so far issued! Or are you secretively trying to plug the man's music?? I notice too, by the way, that you have found John11inch's Youtube site, no doubt by accident?

There's this joke about a man who for the first time sees bouncing boobs on a TV, and exclaimes in fury: "This is sinful, awful, despicable, abject and in black-and-white too!". Can't help but be reminded of it, considering the way you write!

all best,
gep

[pianisten1989]

You really don't get bored of posting this type of garbage, do you?

Nope, I don't!

[thalbergmad]

Truly no thread can be started without you instantly posting 1,000 posts about how you despise Sorabji and hate every single recording of his music so far issued!

There was nothing "instant" about it. There were references to "him" before I started to post and they were clearly an attempt to get a reaction from me, which is exactly what happened.

I do not like to criticise that which I have not sampled and since Mr 11 Inch has posted Sorabji recordings, it seemed the perfect place to hear some more of Sorabji's music. There is no accident involved here at all.

The Sorabjification of this forum is noticeable and it is completely out of synch with his contribution to piano music, even if you are the most fanatical of followers. Searching the word Sorabji on this forum gives us 1,000 results and that is only limited by the fact that 1,000 is the maximum that can be displayed. The true figure is probably much higher.

If we search some other British composers who were contemporary with Sorabji, we have Bridge with 52 hits, Bax 44, Lennox Berkeley 11, Arthur Bliss 9, Edgar Bainton 6, Stanley Bate 5 and Felix Borowski also 5. I dare not even start looking at the C's. All of those composers added together, represent less than 10% of Sorabji hits.

I am not trying to erase his name from this forum, but there seems to be barely a day when he is not mentioned here and as I have pointed out before, you have your own bloody forum.

After hours subjecting myself to his "music", I am still personally at a loss as to what all the fuss is about, although the odd piece has interested me. Saying that, I would not waste a penny on a CD and would not wipe my arse on a score.

Thal

[ahinton]

Amazing discussion. Sorabji is a composer that never stops to amuse me

Sorabji "never stops" doing what in order to amuse you? Why should he stop doing anything or amuse you? (not that he's been able to do anything at all since October 1988)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=42255.0

Please cast your votes here.

Thal

[sordel]

The Sorabjification of this forum is noticeable and it is completely out of synch with his contribution to piano music, even if you are the most fanatical of followers.

You'd have a point, Thal, but the thread is about the most difficult non-Baroque Toccata. On that subject, it is not merely that Sorabji is a contender; it's that one of Sorabji's toccatas is certainly the right answer.

If I were to go into the thread, for example, on Bachscholar's opinions on the Chopin etudes, and started up posting that they were inferior to Sorabji's, then I would be certainly crow-barring him in where he wasn't necessarily needed, but in this thread he is so obviously relevant that you're making a bit of a fool of yourself.

[thalbergmad]

As far as people like you are concerned, you will always find him relevant.

Even if we had a thread about lawn mowers, one of you twonks would come up with some kind of link.

"Oh, Sorabji used to have a 1956 Atco Delux. Composed his Toccata whilst mowing his front garden"

Thal

[sordel]

Even if we had a thread about lawn mowers, one of you twonks would come up with some kind of link.

Erm, if it was a thread on lawn mowers, wouldn't it already be off-topic? 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Erm, if it was a thread on lawn mowers, wouldn't it already be off-topic? 

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=29884.0

A masterpiece. Now if only it had been a toccata and not a concerto..

[thalbergmad]

HAHA, I had forgotten about that.

I recall some sheet music along a similar theme as well.

Thal

[gerryjay]

After hours subjecting myself to his "music", I am still personally at a loss as to what all the fuss is about.

I second that. I knew Sorabji's music almost ten years ago, and at first it had an impression on me. Mostly because I could not understand what he was all about. So, as a particularly curious guy I am, I did listen a lot to his music, and little by little I figured out that my first impression was quite precise: there is nothing to understand there. I mean, he is not about composition as it is understood normally, but about a stream of consciousness (in the lack of a better terminology). An overcomplicate and meaningless stream of consciousness.

Parentesis: being Joyce is not for everybody.

However, this is not demeaning: it is just different. He felt like writing and writing and writing ... and writing even more, without never annoying himself with things that are normally considered mandatory: coherence, meaning, communication, usw. As far as I am concerned, he created a personal musical world, that he didn't care if someone else will like or not, will care about or not, will understand or not.

So far so good, but two things prevent me from connecting with that: the first, he was kind of an arrogant man, as well as many of the people I know that like his music. (For my fellow piano streeters, I don't know any of you, so it is not personal.) Then, something like the Opus Clavis is the most fantastic music incarnation of the Emperor's New Clothes I know or can imagine.

That said, this is why he and his music always entertain me.

Best regards,
Jay.

[thalbergmad]

he was kind of an arrogant man, as well as many of the people I know that like his music.

You could be on to something here.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

An overcomplicate and meaningless stream of consciousness.

The best description I have ever read.

Thal

[sordel]

Jay,

I disagree with less of what you say about Sorabji than you might suppose, but my main reason for appreciating your saying it is that it is the first coherent adverse criticism of Sorabji that I have heard on these boards.

I think that your comment about Sorabji's music representing a stream of consciousness is a reasonable one. I suspect that he devised elaborate structures for his pieces partly because he felt that the architecture would make musical sense of his fecundity. He was not always right.

Where I would take issue with you is that, to me, there is absolutely nothing fake in Sorabji. He tells you that he is going to give you a theme and 49 variations, and that's what he gives you. He tells you that he is going to give you a fugue on four subjects and that's what he does. I don't know how he could be more coherent than that, or how you test that for "meaning".

The problem is when a Sorabji fan comes along, just intending to draw attention to a work, and gives the impression that because he wrote a fugue on four subjects that goes on for 45 minutes, that of itself makes him important. It's as though the question of musical merit has been entirely sidelined.

Now, I think that for many of those of us who listen to Sorabji, the question of musical merit is always there as a question-mark. He isn't the most moving or musical composer; it would be a very strange listener who argued that he was. Although I've invested a lot of time in listening to Sorabji, I don't feel that it's a settled question and don't feel so emotionally invested in Sorabji that I can't consider his shortcomings.

As for his arrogance, well, Wagner was supremely arrogant and only a fool would say that it detracts from his value as a composer. And - since I see that Thal has insinuated a little sniping aside - the arrogance of Wagner fans also does not detract from his value as a composer.

Personally, I would never count the arrogance of a Thalberg fan as having any bearing at all on my estimation of Thalberg as a composer.

[gerryjay]

Dear Sordel,
thanks for your post. Although we went completely off-topic, I think there is no harm staying there a bit more.

Where I would take issue with you is that, to me, there is absolutely nothing fake in Sorabji. He tells you that he is going to give you a theme and 49 variations, and that's what he gives you. He tells you that he is going to give you a fugue on four subjects and that's what he does. I don't know how he could be more coherent than that, or how you test that for "meaning".

We don't disagree. I think Sorabji was authentic. More important, as far as his music and his writings testimony, he was a very faithful follower of himself. However, this is not the coherence I was talking about. Music to me is communication: I think it can't happen in its own, or without - at least - two people involved. That said, it is obvious to understand exactly what coherence and meaning do...err...mean to me.

Nevertheless, I must always point out: he was not about music as communication. And that is my primary problem with him as an artist. Yes, it is personal, but on that level, it must be personal imho.

The problem is when a Sorabji fan comes along, just intending to draw attention to a work, and gives the impression that because he wrote a fugue on four subjects that goes on for 45 minutes, that of itself makes him important. It's as though the question of musical merit has been entirely sidelined.

Very indeed, but for one aspect. Doing something unusual was a fundamental trend on 20th century art. Focusing my comment on music, there are many outstanding examples: Cage's 4'33, Stockhausen's Aus den sieben Tagen, or - for the sake of that argument - one of Sorabji's work (name the one you want to). In that sense, I think something like the Opus Clavis is remarkable, and the motive I used it in many lectures I gave about 20th century piano music. But this kind of output is, by definition, a dead end: it is interesting due to its novelty. Reworking the same premise is, at best, kitsch.

Of course, the simple fact of being complex is useless. Is more or less the same of "playing the most difficult piece available" just because of its difficulty, or anything you understand by that.

As for his arrogance, well, Wagner was supremely arrogant and only a fool would say that it detracts from his value as a composer. And - since I see that Thal has insinuated a little sniping aside - the arrogance of Wagner fans also does not detract from his value as a composer.

Personally, I would never count the arrogance of a Thalberg fan as having any bearing at all on my estimation of Thalberg as a composer.

That was a personal remark, and the same applies to Wagner as far as I am concerned. I really appreciate his Tannhauser, and I think Tristan und Isolde is the most important single influence ever, but I can't see anything extraordinary about The Ring. OK, four nights of music and all the stuff, but then...what?

Best regards,
Jay.

[sordel]

I can't see anything extraordinary about The Ring. OK, four nights of music and all the stuff, but then...what?

Well, I can only speak to my experience, and - having been fortunate enough to see The Ring complete live over the course of a single week - I feel that the cumulative force of that final evening is far greater than could have been attained with a single opera. Naturally your mileage may vary.

It is left to the huge egos to produce works on this scale, and some people will find that off-putting in the same way that they find fascist art to be repellent. It's a fair objection, but it's difficult to argue that extreme length in a work of art disqualifies it from serious consideration. Basically, if you are going to consume a massive work of art, then you are going to have to put up with the fact that immense arrogance probably lies behind it.

Dragging ourselves back to the subject, toccatas in the post-baroque period seem to have something in common: they are meant to be hard to play, hence the thread. When a composer writes a toccata, one of the things that s/he tends to imply is difficulty, yet most listeners would agree that difficulty of performance is hardly the main attraction in music. (Most general listeners anyway ... the Streeters do tend to obsess about difficulty as a good in itself.) So ... is it tempting to say that a composer who writes a toccata is already on the wrong track? Or would we be better to say that difficulty, like length, is one of several things that a composer can choose to prioritise as a target for their work?

Ultimately there is no greater merit for a work of art than that it be good, but length and difficulty are perhaps in themselves merits of some sort. I've been drawn to length and difficulty in many areas of art but I hope I've never lost sight of the question of whether the game was worth the candle.

[ahinton]

he was kind of an arrogant man, as well as many of the people I know that like his music. (For my fellow piano streeters, I don't know any of you, so it is not personal.)

Exactly (the bit within brackets, that is); you don't know any of these people and, more importantly in the light of your statement, you didn't know Sorabji either - so your accusation as to his alleged "arrogance" is based upon what? I don't wish to pull rank, but I knew him, whereas you didn't.

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

I don't wish to pull rank, but I knew him, whereas you didn't.

And I take it that you didn't find him to be arrogant?

[ahinton]

And I take it that you didn't find him to be arrogant?

The very reverse, in fact!

Best,

Alistair

[gerryjay]

Dear Sordel,

Well, I can only speak to my experience, and - having been fortunate enough to see The Ring complete live over the course of a single week - I feel that the cumulative force of that final evening is far greater than could have been attained with a single opera. Naturally your mileage may vary.

I have this opportunity too, and I experienced a complete sense of boredom. To the very deep of my soul. The second time around, btw, I did not attend Gotterdamerung. Of course, we must never forget these are personal remarks, but they do influence my reasoning about Wagner and his music. I can prevent that.

It is left to the huge egos to produce works on this scale, and some people will find that off-putting in the same way that they find fascist art to be repellent. It's a fair objection, but it's difficult to argue that extreme length in a work of art disqualifies it from serious consideration. Basically, if you are going to consume a massive work of art, then you are going to have to put up with the fact that immense arrogance probably lies behind it.

I agree with you, but I must clarify that I have nothing against large-scale works. Quite the contrary: from Bach's Goldenberg variations to Riley's In C, I do appreciate massive works that fullfil the basic premise of a massive work: have something to say. I don't think Wagner had material to fill up one opera, let alone four, with what he presents in the Ring. Another example to me is Beethoven's Diabelli variations, which I could grant the award for Most Annoying Work by a Composer I Love ever.

Dragging ourselves back to the subject, toccatas in the post-baroque period seem to have something in common: they are meant to be hard to play, hence the thread. When a composer writes a toccata, one of the things that s/he tends to imply is difficulty, yet most listeners would agree that difficulty of performance is hardly the main attraction in music. (Most general listeners anyway ... the Streeters do tend to obsess about difficulty as a good in itself.) So ... is it tempting to say that a composer who writes a toccata is already on the wrong track? Or would we be better to say that difficulty, like length, is one of several things that a composer can choose to prioritise as a target for their work?

(Thanks for the shortcut back ). I'd have an objection about the toccata as a difficult piece, but it is pointless. I think your point is valid, and the answer to your question is more or less the same regarding difficulty as regarding length. If the composer, to communicate what he needs, end up with a challenging composition (or, in other words, a difficult piece) it is fine to me. A clear example are the forementioned Goldberg Variations, and many others do occur. However, difficulty per se makes no sense at all. Why it should be difficult to be good? Besides a clear overcompensation, there is no excuse at all. Well, overcompensation is not an excuse as well...

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Exactly (the bit within brackets, that is); you don't know any of these people and, more importantly in the light of your statement, you didn't know Sorabji either - so your accusation as to his alleged "arrogance" is based upon what? I don't wish to pull rank, but I knew him, whereas you didn't.

Best,
Alistair

Dear Alistair,
I was reluctant is answering you, because I think we will end up in a pointless argument. Nevertheless, I must respectfully comment your post.

First, let me quote myself:

So far so good, but two things prevent me from connecting with that: the first, he was kind of an arrogant man, as well as many of the people I know that like his music. (For my fellow piano streeters, I don't know any of you, so it is not personal.)

This is a personal remark. I'm claiming nothing besides: 1) I think he was an arrogant man; 2) without a single exception I can remember, the people I know that enjoy his music are quite arrogant too; 3) I don't know personally the people of piano street, so it is not directed toward anyone in this thread.

So, when you say "you don't know any of these people", I can't understand what you are talking about.

****

Then, let me quote directly from The Sorabji Archive forum (yes, I did read quite a lot of material about him), the words of Mr. Roberge (who quotes from Sorabji):

One could write an entire essay on this question, something I cannot do here, but one way to start would be to consider what Sorabji himself wrote in his "Personal Statement" dated 14 October 1959 and first published in 1965 in the Scottish journal Gambit. It concludes as follows:

"Why do I write as I do? Why did (and do) the artists-craftsmen of Iran, India, China, Byzantine-Arabic Sicily (in the first and last of which are my own ancestral roots) produce the sort of elaborate highly wrought work they did? That was their way. It is also mine. If you don't like it, because it isn't the present-day done thing, that is too bad, but not for me, who couldn't care less. In fact, to me your disapproval is an indirect compliment and much less an insult than your applause, when I consider some of your idols."

This is arrogant to the point of being stupid. Of course, it could be only my perception but, for starters, I never claimed anything else.

Finally, do I understand it the wrong way, or did you dismissed me because I was not an acquaintance of Mr. Sorabji?

Best regards,
Jay.

[ahinton]

First, let me quote myself:This is a personal remark. I'm claiming nothing besides: 1) I think he was an arrogant man; 2) without a single exception I can remember, the people I know that enjoy his music are quite arrogant too; 3) I don't know personally the people of piano street, so it is not directed toward anyone in this thread.

So, when you say "you don't know any of these people", I can't understand what you are talking about.

It's you who's doing the talking here! You - not I - stated that you don't know other members here personally. You may think that Sorabji was arrogant but, as you did not know him, you can have no evidence in support of such a thought.

Then, let me quote directly from The Sorabji Archive forum (yes, I did read quite a lot of material about him), the words of Mr. Roberge (who quotes from Sorabji):This is arrogant to the point of being stupid. Of course, it could be only my perception but, for starters, I never claimed anything else.

It is indeed your personal perception and you do not make it at all clear on what you base it.

Finally, do I understand it the wrong way, or did you dismissed me because I was not an acquaintance of Mr. Sorabji?

I am not dismissing anyone; I merely pointed out that, as you did not know Sorabji personally, your first-hand knowledge as to his arrogance or otherwise is inevitably compromised, to say the very least. I am certainly not dismissing you because you happen not to have known Sorabji personally - merely pointing out that any view that you may have about his personality is based upon that lack of first-hand knowledge and would have to be accepted or rejected accordingly.

Best,

Alistair