Most Difficult Toccata (non-baroque)

[gerryjay]

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

Actually, I did. You may reject it, and it is fine, but there is a statement by Sorabji himself that I did quote here. And again, you may reject may interpretation, but I stand for it and that you can't deny.

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.

We have two aspects here. The first, I must disagree: first-hand knowledge is a kind of knowledge, only that. I can assume whatever I want to as much as I am based on my perception, supported by my rationale. I said I think, based on what I can perceive and understand from Sorabji (through his writings, through his music, through the way he faced art, through what people that knew him do tell, usw), that he was an arrogant man. Period.

Insisting that I am compromised because I look from a different perpective, or that yours is the right perspective because you knew him, are both classic fallacies. Please don't go that way.

Now, let me turn to something I agree, perhaps not on the original intention, but anyway: my view have to be accepted or rejected accordingly to the kind of knowledge I had. Of course, but this is a two-sided situation: someone who knew Sorabji could easily have a biased opinion about him, and trying to deny a shortcoming would be an evidence of that behaviour.

That said, please notice that I think your work is a fundamental one, and Sorabji's music must be played, but what I'm about is something quite different. I try to find a place to Sorabji and his music in a much greater panorama. As much as I am concerned as a pianist or a teacher or a musicologist, he is one of many English composers that I deal with. I can't neglect him - and I don't think there is no reason to neglect a composer that made something actually different -, but I don't have to pay any respects to his output as well. And, just to rest my case, I don't think I disrespect his memory because I think he had an issue, which is to me - at least - very evident.

As I started, I thought this would end up in a pointless argument as it is about to turn. You will say I'm wrong and compromised, and I...err...couldn't care less.

Best regards,
Jay.

[djealnla]

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.

Well Thal, that makes good sense, but "sordel" has already addressed this. Moreover, it's not like you have not done such a thing yourself. For instance, in the "Greatest fugue or fugato?" thread (https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=41714.0) you were the first person to mention Sorabji:

Amazed nobody has mentioned Snorabji yet.

Surely he wrote something about 3 months long of incredible quality.

Thal

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.

Evidence? Incidentally, isn't Sorabji the most prolific original solo piano composer of all time? Liszt wrote more hours of music, but much of his output consists of transcriptions.

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.

Perhaps it's because his music stands out above theirs.

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.

This has already been addressed. Nevertheless, I must enquire: if you don't want him erased, then why did you create your "Who should leave the forum?" poll? That is hypocritical.

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.

That is perfectly fine.

[djealnla]

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.

Umm... no.

Parentesis: being Joyce is not for everybody.

It's actually "parenthesis".

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:

Let's have a look at your list:

coherence

Yes he was concerned with it.

meaning

If anything here is devoid of meaning, it is this statement.

communication

So why did he dedicate his pieces to his friends?

usw.

You haven't yet provided evidence for the first three things.

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.

Didn't Beethoven do that in much of his late music? This issue was discussed by Alistair in the "Ian Pace on Sorabji" thread (https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=40095.msg446862#msg446862).

first, he was kind of an arrogant man

Evidence?

as well as many of the people I know that like his music.

Evidence?

(For my fellow piano streeters, I don't know any of you, so it is not personal.)

Yes it is. Either eat your words or back up your statements.

Then, something like the Opus Clavis is the most fantastic music incarnation of the Emperor's New Clothes I know or can imagine.

John Ogdon, one of the greatest pianistic minds of the 20th century, once described, in a conversation with Ronald Stevenson (I think), the Opus Clavicembalisticum as one of the "few pieces worth playing", naming it alongside Chopin's 4th Ballade, Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata and Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica. You have not backed up your statement to any degree. Would you have dared to argue with somebody like John Ogdon (who was also planning to record Sorabji's complete Etudes)? Do you think he was completely misguided?

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

Probably because your statements are so fallacious that one can't help but laugh.

[djealnla]

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.

The people who find Sorabji a mere curiosity certainly do that, but not his biggest fans.

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.

For me, in many respects, he is THE most moving composer. What's so odd about this belief? And what do you mean by him being "musical"?

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.

Which shortcomings are you referring to?

[djealnla]

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.

The Sorabji piece you mentioned here is a pretty bad choice for the phenomenon of "originality for the sake of originality", considering it is basically a tribute to Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica and employs baroque forms.

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?

I personally consider Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg to be the best of the lot.

[djealnla]

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.

Fascism has nothing to do with this. Sorabji was influenced by Eastern thought, to a large degree.

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.

Are you sure of this? What exactly defines a large work anyway? Where is the cutoff? Bruckner composed long symphonies (particularly the last one he completed), yet he was a most humble person and even to this day remains the best example of how a composer's compositional output doesn't have to have anything to do with the same person's life.

[djealnla]

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.

I'll rather leave this without comment.

[djealnla]

Oh, BTW, all those interested can give a listen to the beginning of one the hardest toccatas ever written here: https://www.davetubaking.com/10.html

[ahinton]

Actually, I did. You may reject it, and it is fine, but there is a statement by Sorabji himself that I did quote here. And again, you may reject may interpretation

I am, of course, well aware of that statement and I noted your quotation from it, but an interpretation of it that leads to a belief that Sorabji was arrogant is indeed gravely misplaced; it's along similar lines to the assumption that composers such (and as diverse) as Sorabji, Carter and Birtwistle must all be arrogant because they've each in their own ways made it clear that they write what they want to write, not what others might expect of them or what they think others might want from them - and the reason for this is that this is all that one can do as a composer if one is being honest about one's art in the sense of being oneself rather than kow-towing to some kind of perception of what might go down well with an audience. The reason for this is that one can never predict with certainty who will listen to one's work, so it is impossible to write "for" a particular audience. My own take on that is "never ingratiate, never alienate".

We have two aspects here. The first, I must disagree: first-hand knowledge is a kind of knowledge, only that. I can assume whatever I want to as much as I am based on my perception, supported by my rationale. I said I think, based on what I can perceive and understand from Sorabji (through his writings, through his music, through the way he faced art, through what people that knew him do tell, usw), that he was an arrogant man. Period.

Fine. You assume what you wish! As I wrote, I am not seeking to pull rank here, but having personal experience of Sorabji over some 16 years, I ought to have some idea of the extent (if any) to which he was of an arrogant disposition -, that's all.

Insisting that I am compromised because I look from a different perpective, or that yours is the right perspective because you knew him, are both classic fallacies. Please don't go that way.

This is less about right and wrong per se than about the extent of different individual experiences of the composer; had he been arrogant, he would surely at times have behaved in an arrogant manner, yet I only ever encountered him behaving in ways that are the very opposite of arrogance, as I stated.

Now, let me turn to something I agree, perhaps not on the original intention, but anyway: my view have to be accepted or rejected accordingly to the kind of knowledge I had. Of course, but this is a two-sided situation: someone who knew Sorabji could easily have a biased opinion about him, and trying to deny a shortcoming would be an evidence of that behaviour.

Having a biased opinion of Sorabji - favourable or otherwise - does not of itself presume the need to have known him personally, as your own opinion demonstrates! My own opinion of him is not influenced by having knwon him other than to the extent that I have more experience of his conduct on which to base such an opinion.

That said, please notice that I think your work is a fundamental one, and Sorabji's music must be played

Thank you.

, but what I'm about is something quite different. I try to find a place to Sorabji and his music in a much greater panorama. As much as I am concerned as a pianist or a teacher or a musicologist, he is one of many English composers that I deal with. I can't neglect him - and I don't think there is no reason to neglect a composer that made something actually different -, but I don't have to pay any respects to his output as well. And, just to rest my case, I don't think I disrespect his memory because I think he had an issue, which is to me - at least - very evident.

Just like anyone else, you are at liberty to form your opinion of his music and him as a person from whatever experiences of each that you have.

As I started, I thought this would end up in a pointless argument as it is about to turn. You will say I'm wrong and compromised

I will say only what I have already said, other than to add that I do not personally regard the discussion as pointless.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

isn't Sorabji the most prolific original solo piano composer of all time? Liszt wrote more hours of music, but much of his output consists of transcriptions

Though quite a few of those transcriptions are themselves original, just as are, for example, Godowsky's of Bach solo violin and cello works and his studies on the études of Chopin!

Perhaps it's because his music stands out above theirs.

Or, even more likely, that the proportion of their work that is devoted to music for piano solo or works that involve the piano is vastly smaller than in the case of Sorabji.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

John Ogdon, one of the greatest pianistic minds of the 20th century, once described, in a conversation with Ronald Stevenson (I think), the Opus Clavicembalisticum as one of the "few pieces worth playing", naming it alongside Chopin's 4th Ballade, Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata and Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica. You have not backed up your statement to any degree. Would you have dared to argue with somebody like John Ogdon (who was also planning to record Sorabji's complete Etudes)? Do you think he was completely misguided?

An excellent point. I should add that, like Bruckner (whom you mention later in your responses), John Ogdon was one of the most modest and un-arrogant people that one could ever hope to meet. What he meant was not so much that other works weren't worth playing (that would have been absurd for a pianist with so vast and varied a repertoire of John's) but that the playing of those few works (there were seven altogether, as I recall) was somehow utterly essential for him - more so than any others. The very fact that his repertoire was so large makes this statement all the more potent.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Fascism has nothing to do with this. Sorabji was influenced by Eastern thought, to a large degree.

Sorabji also once stated that when people refer to "fascism" they usually mean everyone else's fascism other than their own...

What exactly defines a large work anyway? Where is the cutoff? Bruckner composed long symphonies (particularly the last one he completed), yet he was a most humble person and even to this day remains the best example of how a composer's compositional output doesn't have to have anything to do with the same person's life.

I don't know about the best, but it is certainly a salient example; Sorabji's is another. There is, of course, no such cut-off, as you rightly imply; what on earth, for example, might a contemporary of Haydn have thought of Beethoven's A minor, B flat and C# minor quartets in terms of their duration and scope?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I'll rather leave this without comment.

Who wouldn't?!...

Anyway, to return (at last!) to the list as submitted by the originator of this thread, I submit that the Busoni is probably the most difficult (albeit also the most rewarding) of these works to perform satisfactorily.

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

Whew, this debate has moved on quite a lot overnight (well, overnight in my timezone, at least.) rather than quote each poster in turn, I'll just pick up what stood out most prominently as I read through.

1. To Djnealnla: I find a number of problems with Sorabji's music. I hadn't intended to rehearse them here because to most people reading these forums they are immediately apparent. For me, his flaws are not disqualifying.

2. I made reference to Fascist art. The term is a red rag to a bull, even more incautious given that I used it in close juxtaposition to mention of Wagner. I meant it in a reasonably precise sense, though, to mean the oversized neoclassical sculpture and architecture associated with Fascism. I hope that I can imply that Sorabji shared that aesthetic without in any way implying that he shared those politics.

[ahinton]

I made reference to Fascist art. The term is a red rag to a bull, even more incautious given that I used it in close juxtaposition to mention of Wagner. I meant it in a reasonably precise sense, though, to mean the oversized neoclassical sculpture and architecture associated with Fascism. I hope that I can imply that Sorabji shared that aesthetic without in any way implying that he shared those politics.

Of course you can; the fundamental question, however, is whether or not you should and, in order to justify so doing, I submit that you would need to provide far more evidence in an attempt to support your apparent contention that Sorabji shared the aesthetic to which you refer - evidence that seeks to draw viable and valid parallels between such sculpture and architecture on the one hand and Sorabji's music - songs, piano music of all shapes and sizes, organ symphonies, chamber works and the rest - on the other.

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

I submit that you would need to provide far more evidence in an attempt to support your apparent contention that Sorabji shared the aesthetic to which you refer

What evidence would satisfy you that Sorabji's works are oversized and neoclassical?

You could argue, I suppose, that Sorabji comes in a romantic neoclassical tradition that precedes fascism: that it's a coincidence that these big works share some superficial resemblances to other forms of art more political in character. It would be also fair to say that cultures at both ends of the political spectrum inclined to the sort of art that I am terming fascist: perhaps totalitarian would be the better term.

That said, I'm sure that there's enough good theory written on the political implications of neoclassicism and modernism to make it unnecessary to rehearse the arguments on an internet forum.

As a matter of interest, would your counterexample be "Hugh MacDiarmid", by any chance?

[thalbergmad]

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.

I don't care if you met him once, a hundred times, or you lived with him for 30 years, we are still reliant on your own view which may well be biased.

I base my judgement on his horrid scribblings about other composers, that arguably wrote more worth in one bar than he could do in the entirety of one of his lengthy meaningless piles.

Thal

[gerryjay]

Dear Djealnla,
I thought that just from the start my view was clear, but perhaps I'm just a very bad writer (as my typo would prove).

Trying to get things clear, you call me for evidence. As I pointed out earlier, it is my personal interpretation of what is available for me to analyse. This is not a scientific paper, so I tried to provide just an example that support my view, which I did. You do not agree, that is your plain right, but this don't change a grain the validity of my point. As for evidence about the people I know that are arrogant idiots who appreciate Sorabji's music, this would be quite difficult to provide. Again, it is just an internet forum, not a scientific paper!

Anyway, don't even start to talk about logic with me when you write the following:

John Ogdon, one of the greatest pianistic minds of the 20th century, once described, in a conversation with Ronald Stevenson (I think), the Opus Clavicembalisticum as one of the "few pieces worth playing", naming it alongside Chopin's 4th Ballade, Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata and Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica. You have not backed up your statement to any degree. Would you have dared to argue with somebody like John Ogdon (who was also planning to record Sorabji's complete Etudes)? Do you think he was completely misguided?

Probably because your statements are so fallacious that one can't help but laugh.

Do you need me to point the complete lack of reasoning behind that? Furthermore, although you are using irony to criticize me, you are incurring in so many fallacies that I stoped counting. Just as examples, your argument do not get better claiming Ogdon, and you really lost any of your reason with your last phrase.

My own statements are not fallacious, especially because all of that started with a misguided interpretation of what I wrote. If you read again the thread, you will notice that my view of Sorabji's is not a demeaning one. The fact that I, personally, do think he was an arrogant man and that, personally, can't connect with his music because of that, should be respected, not criticized. I am not dismissing him as a composer because of that, I don't think his music is bad because of that, I don't support any of my critic about his music on that.

But, yes, I think I touched some kind of nerve here. Perhaps I should be polite and let it go.

***

About the example of Opus Clavis, I am well aware of what you mentioned. The reason I choose this example is the fact that it is the work with Sorabji's name is more easily connected to. When, in the lectures that involved Sorabji, I tried to present his music to people that either don't know him or don't give a damn to him, I think this is the most effective example to use. And yes, it is an example of his novelty: a work of unknown proportions, based on a stream of consciousness, which is a very great challenge to any pianist.

***

Finally, about my remark on Wagner's Ring and Beethoven's Diabelli, why would you leave that without a comment? Because Wagner and Beethoven were geniuses and their authority is not to be contested? Or because everybody think this is great music, and so you do? Or because you think I can't provide evidence to support that?

Yes, I know it is quite provocative, but that is not my intention. I really love Wagner and Beethoven music, but they had - as anyone - his lower moments. I quoted both examples because I see the same issue as to Sorabji: neither Beethoven nor Wagner suceeded with their show off projects. To provide evidence of that would take me a complete paper - which I have no plans of writing - but I'll let that as a personal remark as well.

On the other hand, can you provide support to the fact that these are masterpieces other than common sense? I'll be very glad to read it. Please, spare me the bibliography. My opinion is largely due to reading the great authors who wrote about Beethoven and Wagner.

Best regards,
Jay.

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps it's because his music stands out above theirs.

Or it is because their music is not continuously plugged on pianostreets.

The "arrogant idiots" case that gerryjay mentioned, strengthens with each post of Sorabji's hero worshippers.

Thal

[gep]

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.

How odd, you must have met rather other Sorabji "fans" (whatever that may mean) than I have. Having been on board of the Sorabji Forum for a while now, the performance time is practically a non issue when discussing his music (other than in a basical practical matter). The length of any of his works has nothing to do with whatever qualities his works have musically. For ex., his 2nd Organ Symphony lasts some 9 hours, but when I had the privilege of being at the 2nd ever performance thereof (in Amsterdam last year), the time gone by was just about the very last thing I was concerned with or in fact did notice.

there is nothing to understand there.

Eh, what?

I mean, he is not about composition as it is understood normally,

And how is composition understood normally then? Such as results in music you like?

An overcomplicate and meaningless stream of consciousness.

If it were over-complicate a total amateur music lover like myself would not enjoy a piece of his at first hearing to the extend I do. And if it were meaningless, it would not be able to captivate the attention of an audience, and certainly not at first hearing, and certainly too not at great length. Since I have seen evidence that it can very much captivate an audience at a first performance for several hours on end, I'd say it DOES have a meaning, but not to everybody (but then, why should it?). That it has no meaning to you does not make it meaningless by default.

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.

Indeed as you write: “without never”. I think his music is amazingly coherent, meaningful, communicative, etc.. However, he does so by applying his “rules” and writing in his “language”. Once you know the rules and learn the language (and you don’t even need to be fluent), things come together. If you are deaf to the “rules and language” of, say, Bruckner, his music will be everything you say about Sorabji’s. Enter Hanslick.

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.

If you feel that this is a fault, I trust you dislike composers like Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Messiaen and such and so more just as much as you dislike Sorabji, and only like things like film music?

he was kind of an arrogant man

Really? He kept himself clear of a lot of people, that may be true, but I think he had lots of reason for that. If you’d care to read up some of the basics of his life, you should not be surprised he became, let us say, somewhat selective of whom he let into his life. From what I have read, he seems to be rather more “kind” than “arrogant”. Besides that, whatever does whatever his character may have been to do with what his music is like??

as well as many of the people I know that like his music.

Strange, I have the same feeling about quite a few of the people who dislike his music…

(For my fellow piano streeters, I don't know any of you, so it is not personal.)

Since your writing is about people who like Sorabji’s music, and you know that there are such on the Piano Forum, I’d say it is quite personal, if not specific. For the record: I do not care what you think of me.

In short, if you have heard Sorabji’s music and find it does not work for you, fine, it means you actually develop a personal taste. But can we please stop yapping on about those things about his music and person that are of no matter to the music’s content as if they say anything about that music?? If you do not like it, fine, and move on. I do like it, also fine, and now I will move on. To the subject of this thread (if I may be forgiven) in fact.

Ahem.

And Amen.


********************************************************************


While it is not actually called Toccata, how about the Op. 39/1 “Comme le vent” by Alkan?

All best,
gep

[gerryjay]

Dear Alistair,

I am, of course, well aware of that statement and I notd your quotation from it, but an interpretation of it that leads to a belief that Sorabji was arrogant is indeed gravely misplaced; it's along similar lines to the assumption that composers such (and as diverse) as Sorabji, Carter and Birtwistle must all be arrogant because they've each in their own ways made it clear that they write what they want to write, not what others might expect of them or what they think others might want from them - and the reason for this is that this is all that one can do as a composer if one is being honest about one's art in the sense of being oneself rather than kow-towing to some kind of perception of what might go down well with an audience. The reason for this is that one can never predict with certainty who will listen to one's work, so it is impossible to write "for" a particular audience. My own take on that is "never ingratiate, never alienate".

I think you have a very valid point here, but I must stand for my point. The example I quoted is a clear arrogant statement and I thank you for remembering Carter. I can't comment on Birtwistle, but I have read nearly every public line of Carter's writings, and I think he is a completely different man and, no, I don't think he is arrogant. Quite the contrary! But when someone insults the crowd, claiming people is wrong and their taste is crap, and use that to stand for his own point of view (just what Sorabji did in those lines), I can't help but thinking this was the product of a arrogant man. The only other interpretation would lead me to think he lacked contact with reality in some level, but I can't assume that. It is simpler - and thus, prefered - to believe he have a simple shortcoming, as any other man.

Fine. You assume what you wish! As I wrote, I am not seeking to pull rank here, but having personal experience of Sorabji over some 16 years, I ought to have some idea of the extent (if any) to which he was of an arrogant disposition -, that's all.

And I take that in consideration. A close friend did not percept Sorabji as an arrogant man. To me, this is something to consider, as much as any other information I have about him.

This is less about right and wrong per se than about the extent of different individual experiences of the composer; had he been arrogant, he would surely at times have behaved in an arrogant manner, yet I only ever encountered him behaving in ways that are the very opposite of arrogance, as I stated.
Having a biased opinion of Sorabji - favourable or otherwise - does not of itself presume the need to have known him personally, as your own opinion demonstrates! My own opinion of him is not influenced by having knwon him other than to the extent that I have more experience of his conduct on which to base such an opinion.

This is a delicate matter. I would not be stupid to deny your acquaintance and the fact that it can provide relevant insights. Nevertheless, I could easily assume you are too close to the picture to understand it properly. But my point is based in neither of both. Please let me explain it.

I study Sorabji's music for more than ten years by now. Aside, my analysis is based on an unabridged understanding of the music process, from its poietic stages to the sheer reception of the naïve listener. It gave to me a deep view of his music, and an opinion about his personality. The first is fundamental to what I do and the second is helpful sometimes. Also, I don't have problems to think that even my dearest composers (Beethoven is the perfect example) have very bad compositions, and unfortunate moments in their careers, let alone great personal issues.

Here is where we will never agree. I'm an analyst of 20th century music and you assume I don't have enough acquaintance with Sorabji to claim anything about he or his music. That is fair, but on the other hand I know you are the greatest advocate of Sorabji and his music, which is something I praise, as I pointed out, but at the same time is something that don't help your argumentation when you stand to defend him.

That said, and to end my participation on this thread, I never had any intention of attacking Sorabji, and it never lead me to a fallacy. I stated he was an arrogant man, but I don't concluded - based on that - anything but the fact that I can't connect myself with his music. I did present Sorabji's music to many people, and I hope I'll be able to do that in the future. However, from that to believe he was a perfect man who spend his life composing masterpieces is a very very very long way, and I don't see its first step in front of me.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

PS, for the original poster: I'm sorry - for my part - we went so off-topic to the point of ruining the thread. But this is a forum, and this things sometimes just happens.

Best wishes,
Jay.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

While I do not know Sorabji well enough to get involved in this discussion, the only arrogance I sense are in those posts who favor him. I am, however, familiar enough with his music to defend my own standpoint in that I have a personal distaste for it.

To djealnla, your posts are some of the most arrogant, self-righteous nonsense that I've ever read. You are the perfect example of what I find wrong with the classical genre. As the product of a conservatory, I am surrounded by people of the most arrogant nature and there is no greater flaw as a musician or music lover. I am surrounded by those who are so fervent in their beliefs, they fail to see the logic, beauty and relevance in another person's opinion. The beauty in music is its diversity (which I'm sure you'll be able to argue and say "NO IT'S NOT!"), and those that present logical explanations that challenge your own viewpoints should be treasured and valued just as much as those who agree with you. I never stop marveling at one's unwillingness to see something bigger than oneself. Sometimes true art only reveals itself to those who deserve it - those with kind hearts and open minds. And in that reasoning, it is only logical that you cannot appreciate another viewpoint different than your own, and in turn cannot find the true beauty in music - you do not deserve it.

I have a personal distaste for Sorabji. To say it bluntly, I find his music uneventful. It does not grab me nor can I connect with it on an emotional level. That does not mean I find his music worthless, that does not mean I feel he is a bad composer. In fact, I envy those who have such a fervent passion for it simply because my personality won't allow me to sit and enjoy it. I have a certain distaste for much of Debussy's music; I find it pretentious. I would be a fool to sit here and question his genius or importance to the world of music, as he wrote some of the most important works in existence. Even for some of the Debussy fans I've encountered, their logic is the same. The simple fact that I do not enjoy some of his music is enough to generalize me as an idiot. I find this to be an unfortunate problem in our genre of music.

Best wishes,

[ahinton]

What evidence would satisfy you that Sorabji's works are oversized and neoclassical?

You could argue, I suppose, that Sorabji comes in a romantic neoclassical tradition that precedes fascism: that it's a coincidence that these big works share some superficial resemblances to other forms of art more political in character. It would be also fair to say that cultures at both ends of the political spectrum inclined to the sort of art that I am terming fascist: perhaps totalitarian would be the better term.

That said, I'm sure that there's enough good theory written on the political implications of neoclassicism and modernism to make it unnecessary to rehearse the arguments on an internet forum.

As a matter of interest, would your counterexample be "Hugh MacDiarmid", by any chance?

In answer to you last question, no, particularly as I was following on from your reference to certain sculpture and architecture. What I would nevertheless add is that Sorabji had very little patience with the notion of political content in music, especially in his own; despite his admiration for Alan Bush, with whom he enjoyed a friendship for some half century, he was not of the view that Bush had done himself any favours with the more overtly political nuances in some of his work.

Sorabji's works come in many sizes. Neoclassical is certainly not a term that I would readily associate with any of them. As to largeness of scale, I would no more attribute this in Sorabji's case to an espousal of the kind of aesthetic that you mention - or to any political motivation - than I would in the case of the larger symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner, the piano concerto of Busoni or other such examples.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't care if you met him once, a hundred times, or you lived with him for 30 years, we are still reliant on your own view which may well be biased.

"May well", yes - but that does not, as I have already stated, mean that, just because I did know him, my view of him would be biased, or even that it might more likely be biased than would have been be the case had I not met him.

I base my judgement on his horrid scribblings about other composers, that arguably wrote more worth in one bar than he could do in the entirety of one of his lengthy meaningless piles.

You base your judgement on whatsoever you please - that is your sole prerogative - but do let us know if it is based on "horrid scribblings" about Liszt, Alkan, Rakhmaninov, Medtner, Szymanowski, Godowsky, Chausson, Mahler, Busoni, Bernard van Dieren, York Bowen et al and what it is about these "scribblings" that defines them as "horrid"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

your argument do not get better claiming Ogdon

Do you mean by this that Ogdon - one of the least arrogant people that I've ever met - didn't really know what he was talking about?

About the example of Opus Clavis, I am well aware of what you mentioned. The reason I choose this example is the fact that it is the work with Sorabji's name is more easily connected to. When, in the lectures that involved Sorabji, I tried to present his music to people that either don't know him or don't give a damn to him, I think this is the most effective example to use. And yes, it is an example of his novelty: a work of unknown proportions, based on a stream of consciousness, which is a very great challenge to any pianist.

True, yet it is also based around four fugues and a couple of substantial variations sets, each of which makes a clear case for its espousal of tried and tested traditions.

I really love Wagner and Beethoven music, but they had - as anyone - his lower moments. I quoted both examples because I see the same issue as to Sorabji: neither Beethoven nor Wagner suceeded with their show off projects.

What on earth does that mean and what are these projects supposed to have been? (and on what grounds do you make such assertions)?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Or it is because their music is not continuously plugged on pianostreets.

The "arrogant idiots" case that gerryjay mentioned, strengthens with each post of Sorabji's hero worshippers.

The fallacy of your assumption here is in your wilful ignorance of the fact that those who admire Sorabji's music (or at least some of it) also admire that of many other composers, not least those whose work Sorabji himself promoted; this "case" would therefore be weak in the first place and incapable of strengthening.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Dear Alistair,I think you have a very valid point here, but I must stand for my point. The example I quoted is a clear arrogant statement and I thank you for remembering Carter. I can't comment on Birtwistle, but I have read nearly every public line of Carter's writings, and I think he is a completely different man and, no, I don't think he is arrogant. Quite the contrary! But when someone insults the crowd, claiming people is wrong and their taste is crap, and use that to stand for his own point of view (just what Sorabji did in those lines), I can't help but thinking this was the product of a arrogant man. The only other interpretation would lead me to think he lacked contact with reality in some level, but I can't assume that. It is simpler - and thus, prefered - to believe he have a simple shortcoming, as any other man.

I'm sure that Sorabji did indeed have shortcomings just like the rest of us do but, if you've really read Carter as throuhgoy as you say, you'll have read his remarks on the work of the minimalists...

And I take that in consideration. A close friend did not percept Sorabji as an arrogant man. To me, this is something to consider, as much as any other information I have about him.
This is a delicate matter. I would not be stupid to deny your acquaintance and the fact that it can provide relevant insights. Nevertheless, I could easily assume you are too close to the picture to understand it properly. But my point is based in neither of both. Please let me explain it.

OK, but before you do, please bear in mind that I knew some of Sorabji's music and had read some of his literary writings long before I met Sorabji himself for the first time, so at that point I did not have my familiarity with him as a person to influence - or not, as was to be the case - my view as to his arrogance or otherwise; for the record, I never thought that he was arrogant.

I study Sorabji's music for more than ten years by now. Aside, my analysis is based on an unabridged understanding of the music process, from its poietic stages to the sheer reception of the naïve listener. It gave to me a deep view of his music, and an opinion about his personality. The first is fundamental to what I do and the second is helpful sometimes. Also, I don't have problems to think that even my dearest composers (Beethoven is the perfect example) have very bad compositions, and unfortunate moments in their careers, let alone great personal issues.

Here is where we will never agree. I'm an analyst of 20th century music and you assume I don't have enough acquaintance with Sorabji to claim anything about he or his music.

I assume nothing of the kind!

That is fair, but on the other hand I know you are the greatest advocate of Sorabji and his music, which is something I praise, as I pointed out, but at the same time is something that don't help your argumentation when you stand to defend him.

I'm here to disseminate information about Sorabji and help to make his work available, not to "defend" him - and there are certainly other advocates of his work besides me!

That said, and to end my participation on this thread, I never had any intention of attacking Sorabji, and it never lead me to a fallacy. I stated he was an arrogant man, but I don't concluded - based on that - anything but the fact that I can't connect myself with his music. I did present Sorabji's music to many people, and I hope I'll be able to do that in the future. However, from that to believe he was a perfect man who spend his life composing masterpieces is a very very very long way, and I don't see its first step in front of me.

I've not suggested that he was such a man - and I do very much appreciate that you have at least made an effort to get to grips with Sorabji and his work.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

While I do not know Sorabji well enough to get involved in this discussion, the only arrogance I sense are in those posts who favor him. I am, however, familiar enough with his music to defend my own standpoint in that I have a personal distaste for it.

To djealnla, your posts are some of the most arrogant, self-righteous nonsense that I've ever read. You are the perfect example of what I find wrong with the classical genre. As the product of a conservatory, I am surrounded by people of the most arrogant nature and there is no greater flaw as a musician or music lover. I am surrounded by those who are so fervent in their beliefs, they fail to see the logic, beauty and relevance in another person's opinion. The beauty in music is its diversity (which I'm sure you'll be able to argue and say "NO IT'S NOT!")

Why would I argue that? It's not music's only beauty, of course, but it's certainly a matter of importance.

and those that present logical explanations that challenge your own viewpoints should be treasured and valued just as much as those who agree with you. I never stop marveling at one's unwillingness to see something bigger than oneself. Sometimes true art only reveals itself to those who deserve it - those with kind hearts and open minds

Dear me, you're at risk here of sounding almost like Sorabji himself at his most "arrogant" (as a few people here might assume)...

I have a personal distaste for Sorabji. To say it bluntly, I find his music uneventful. It does not grab me nor can I connect with it on an emotional level. That does not mean I find his music worthless, that does not mean I feel he is a bad composer. In fact, I envy those who have such a fervent passion for it simply because my personality won't allow me to sit and enjoy it. I have a certain distaste for much of Debussy's music; I find it pretentious. I would be a fool to sit here and question his genius or importance to the world of music, as he wrote some of the most important works in existence. Even for some of the Debussy fans I've encountered, their logic is the same.

OK, so you don't find yourself able to engage with Sorabji or Debussy; fine - at least you've made the effort to do so in both cases!

The simple fact that I do not enjoy some of his music is enough to generalize me as an idiot.

Not to me!

I find this to be an unfortunate problem in our genre of music.

I don't; I find it to be an unfortunate problem amongst certain truly arrogant and ignorant people who get themsvles involved in that genre in some way, not with the genre itself.

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

Neoclassical is certainly not a term that I would readily associate with any of them. As to largeness of scale, I would no more attribute this in Sorabji's case to an espousal of the kind of aesthetic that you mention - or to any political motivation - than I would in the case of the larger symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner, the piano concerto of Busoni or other such examples.

Oh Lord, I really think this is too big a can of worms to open when there are various other arguments going backwards and forwards!

Let me begin by saying that I acknowledge that there are a number of terms in use here that connect in odd ways. For example, neoclassical in terms of sculpture and architecture is a completely different term than it is in a musical context: it refers to Grecian or Roman art in the former case and Baroque in the latter. It's a treacherous term.

Secondly, Graeco-Roman classical art is known for its rationalism and symmetry, whereas Sorabji's music has a Gothic, organic quality that can be considered opposite to that.

Thirdly, Sorabji mixes in Romanticism and Modernism into his music, yet Modernism is usually regarded as anti-Romantic. (Romanticism and especially Expressionism are often alligned with left-wing thinking, Modernism usually with right-wing thinking.) In academic music, Schoenberg was a "late romantic", a "modernist" and a "classicist" all at once, seen from different frames of reference.

If you want to argue that Sorabji was not interested in political characteristics of music, then you can argue that of course, and I think it's a genuinely complicated question.

But, I think that you will find that the various paradoxes actually collapse eventually and you end up with Sorabji as a modernist of some sort, which implies reactionary, which implies right wing. (The Marxist analysis is that an artist cannot be socially neutral; attempting not to be political is itself a consent to the political status quo.)

So, you can either have the Gordian Knot or cut it, but I must acknowledge that this is a subject that would need a good deal more investigation than we are able to give it here.

_______________________

Incidentally, this is not as far from the subject of toccatas as it might appear, since that precise question of the relationship between neoclassicism and modernism is involved in the production of a work with that designation.

[thalbergmad]

You base your judgement on whatsoever you please - that is your sole prerogative - but do let us know if it is based on "horrid scribblings" about Liszt, Alkan, Rakhmaninov, Medtner, Szymanowski, Godowsky, Chausson, Mahler, Busoni, Bernard van Dieren, York Bowen et al and what it is about these "scribblings" that defines them as "horrid"...

He had his favourites the same as the rest of us. I base my comments mainly on his "scribblings" on Stanford and his trashing of Stanford's Piano Concerto No. 2. Unless my memory is fading, Sorabji did not always have the balls to name those that came in for some of his most powerful poison.

I have no desire to read his "Mi Contra Fa" again, so I will not comment further. In parts it is interesting but the overall vibe is one of a bitter and twisted little man attacking those that had made a name for themselves, and had skill that he must of known he could never match.

Perhaps your answer to this would be better placed in the Sorabji Forum. This is getting rather tedious and I expect the vast majority of members on this forum are getting a little tired of the space dedicated to a minor composer (with a small dedicated band of followers) who to most of us made no contribution to the world of piano music.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The fallacy of your assumption here is in your wilful ignorance of the fact that those who admire Sorabji's music (or at least some of it) also admire that of many other composers

Then let us hope there is a little more discussion about them and a little less about him.

Thal

[sordel]

This is getting rather tedious and I expect the vast majority of members on this forum are getting a little tired of the space dedicated to a minor composer (with a small dedicated band of followers) who to most of us made no contribution to the world of piano music.

Astroboy started a thread to talk about Thalberg and you couldn't even be bothered to contribute to it yourself ... if you want to talk about any composer at all other than Sorabji, go post about them. Feel free.

[ahinton]

He had his favourites the same as the rest of us. I base my comments mainly on his "scribblings" on Stanford and his trashing of Stanford's Piano Concerto No. 2. Unless my memory is fading, Sorabji did not always have the balls to name those that came in for some of his most powerful poison.

OK - and so you happen to disagree with those particular writings because your opinions of Stanford differ from Sorabji's; what's wrong or suprising about that?! Sorabji perhaps had discretion rather than lack of balls when eschewing the naming of names in the context that you mention.

I have no desire to read his "Mi Contra Fa" again, so I will not comment further. In parts it is interesting but the overall vibe is one of a bitter and twisted little man attacking those that had made a name for themselves, and had skill that he must of known he could never match.

In your opinion. Sorabji was anything but bitter and twisted, he did feel that some composers had managed to make less - and some other more - of a name from themselves than their music deserved. Of course he might have felt that his skill did not match that of, say, Mahler or Bach, but was he the worse for that?

Perhaps your answer to this would be better placed in the Sorabji Forum.

Why? What would be the point of answering in one forum something had been asked or stated in another? That said, your mantra about there being undue reference to Sorabji on this forum is at least in part down to the fact that certain of its members (no names mentioned, of course) seem to have developed an habitual tendency never to leave anyone else's mere mention of Sorabji alone without making noisy remarks about it; to wit, had the reference to Sorabji's piano toccatas in this thread merely been taken at face value and in good faith, far less of it would have been devoted to mention and discussion of him. Some people, however, never know when or how to direct accusations against themselves...

This is getting rather tedious and I expect the vast majority of members on this forum are getting a little tired of the space dedicated to a minor composer (with a small dedicated band of followers) who to most of us made no contribution to the world of piano music.

Again, in your opinion. You have no more idea how many people appreciate all or some of Sorabji';s work than I do of how many appreciate Chopin's, except that we would of course agree that it's less in the first case. Sorabji's contribution to the world of piano music is immense, not merely on account of the sheer quantity of music that he wrote for the instrument but because of his deep concern for and love of so much of the great piano music that already existed by the time that he began to compose - and some that was written contemporaneously with some of his own; the fact that you don't care for much or any of it is arguably of little consequence except to you, which is surely as it should be.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Then let us hope there is a little more discussion about them and a little less about him.

Well, you could help this along a little by not having such persistent knee-jerk responses to every mention of Sorabji in this forum, along the lines that I mentioned in my previous post!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Astroboy started a thread to talk about Thalberg and you couldn't even be bothered to contribute to it yourself ... if you want to talk about any composer at all other than Sorabji, go post about them. Feel free.

The thread was a question on where to find non electronic scores of his music.

I did not know the answer.

Satisfied?

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Why? What would be the point of answering in one forum something had been asked or stated in another?

To keep the subject in its proper place.

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji's contribution to the world of piano music is immense

In your opinion and within the small confines of your little circle of operation, this might well be true, but for other people (such as myself), there is no contribution.

The sooner you appreciate this, the less pompous and arrogant you will become (hopefully).

Thal

[sordel]

The thread was a question on where to find non electronic scores of his music.

I did not know the answer.

Satisfied?

Sincerely, no. If someone raised a question about one of my enthusiasms in a forum, and I didn't know the answer, I would still foster the thread, if only to keep it current so that the question could be answered by someone else.

When I came to these forums I assumed that people would be talking about Chopin, Liszt, Mozart etc. and I could read what they had to say and learn something from people who were passionate about that music. If there were a healthy posting population here, those of us who like Sorabji would be absolutely buried by other posters.

The simple fact is that people are not keeping threads going on those other composers, so it looks as though the Sorabjians have invaded ... but it's a bit like blaming the beach for invading the sea when the tide is out.

And - believe me, I'm not saying this to score points (for a change) - I would like to read something that you posted on a subject that interests you, rather than reading you again telling me what doesn't.

[ahinton]

To keep the subject in its proper place.

But how can it do that? If someone asks a question or makes some comments about Sorabji on this forum and then someone who belongs both to this forum and the Sorabji forum responds to them on the Sorabji forum, the point would be what?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

In your opinion and within the small confines of your little circle of operation, this might well be true, but for other people (such as myself), there is no contribution.

Not everyone wants to listen to Sorabji, of course, but I do not have any circles of any size in any case, nor do you have any idea of the numbers of people who do want to listen to Sorabji. You're the first to point out that people try to download recordings of his music from the internet; why would they do this if they shared your opinion of the music? Why are many of those recordings still available after as many as 20+ years?

The sooner you appreciate this, the less pompous and arrogant you will become (hopefully).

I am neither, actually and I do already appreciate what your opinion happens to be; I also put it into its correct perspective as best I can.

Does anyone here want to discuss Busoni's Toccata?

Best,

Alistair

[djealnla]

1. To Djnealnla: I find a number of problems with Sorabji's music. I hadn't intended to rehearse them here because to most people reading these forums they are immediately apparent. For me, his flaws are not disqualifying.

2. I made reference to Fascist art. The term is a red rag to a bull, even more incautious given that I used it in close juxtaposition to mention of Wagner. I meant it in a reasonably precise sense, though, to mean the oversized neoclassical sculpture and architecture associated with Fascism. I hope that I can imply that Sorabji shared that aesthetic without in any way implying that he shared those politics.

You are still being vague.

[sordel]

You are still being vague.

Not so much vague as shorthand. The ideas that I'm alluding to - whether or not they are right - are pretty commonplace and involve (as the editors of Wikipedia would insist) "no original research".

[djealnla]

Not so much vague as shorthand. The ideas that I'm alluding to - whether or not they are right - are pretty commonplace and involve (as the editors of Wikipedia would insist) "no original research".

Well, could you just tell us what are some of Sorabji's "flaws"? It shouldn't take more than five minutes (assuming you know his music reasonably well).

[djealnla]

Trying to get things clear, you call me for evidence. As I pointed out earlier, it is my personal interpretation of what is available for me to analyse. This is not a scientific paper, so I tried to provide just an example that support my view, which I did. You do not agree, that is your plain right, but this don't change a grain the validity of my point.

Well, you quoted one quote by Sorabji, and I pointed out that many other famous composers were also "elitists" - that is, they did not pander to common tastes.

As for evidence about the people I know that are arrogant idiots who appreciate Sorabji's music, this would be quite difficult to provide. Again, it is just an internet forum, not a scientific paper!

Well, I'm sure almost every composer has arrogant fans; if somebody regards me as an arrogant fan of Sorabji, they would also have to consider me an arrogant fan of Bach or Bartók.

Anyway, don't even start to talk about logic with me when you write the following:Do you need me to point the complete lack of reasoning behind that? Furthermore, although you are using irony to criticize me, you are incurring in so many fallacies that I stoped counting. Just as examples, your argument do not get better claiming Ogdon, and you really lost any of your reason with your last phrase.

Really? If it can not be proven that the OC is a masterpiece, then it can not be proven to be a bad piece either. What exactly is your point? And what is my fallacy? I find it pretty amusing that you accuse me of using flawed reasoning, when you end up juxtaposing claims about Sorabji's music being a "stream of consciousness" with the OC, considering it is probably the least "improvisatory" of his works, by the very nature of the forms that form the vast majority of it: fugues, variations and treatments of an ostinato. The cadenzas and the like are built out of previously presented material.

My own statements are not fallacious, especially because all of that started with a misguided interpretation of what I wrote. If you read again the thread, you will notice that my view of Sorabji's is not a demeaning one.

How can it not be demeaning? You said that he was not concerned with coherence, meaning and communication. That sounds pretty derogatory to me.

The fact that I, personally, do think he was an arrogant man and that, personally, can't connect with his music because of that, should be respected, not criticized. I am not dismissing him as a composer because of that, I don't think his music is bad because of that, I don't support any of my critic about his music on that.

Well, that's a pretty stupid reason, if you ask me.

But, yes, I think I touched some kind of nerve here. Perhaps I should be polite and let it go.

Not at all (in both cases).

About the example of Opus Clavis, I am well aware of what you mentioned. The reason I choose this example is the fact that it is the work with Sorabji's name is more easily connected to. When, in the lectures that involved Sorabji, I tried to present his music to people that either don't know him or don't give a damn to him, I think this is the most effective example to use.

It is actually one of his most unorthodox works (cf. https://www.sorabji-archive.co.uk/articles/abrahams_2.php).

And yes, it is an example of his novelty: a work of unknown proportions, based on a stream of consciousness, which is a very great challenge to any pianist.

This has already been addressed.

Finally, about my remark on Wagner's Ring and Beethoven's Diabelli, why would you leave that without a comment? Because Wagner and Beethoven were geniuses and their authority is not to be contested? Or because everybody think this is great music, and so you do? Or because you think I can't provide evidence to support that?

Because those two works are great pieces.

On the other hand, can you provide support to the fact that these are masterpieces other than common sense? I'll be very glad to read it. Please, spare me the bibliography. My opinion is largely due to reading the great authors who wrote about Beethoven and Wagner.

Since this remark relates to what you previously said about "Sorabji's unsuccessful projects" (paraphrase), I could argue that Sorabji is great composer based on the admiration that many great musicians have for him. I respect composers based on the admiration that musicologists and performers have for them, even if it does not influence my taste. That is my criterion of compositional greatness. I have quoted John Ogdon; Kevin Bowyer (to give another example) is one of the foremost living exponents of 20th century organ music, and he has stated that Sorabji's organ works belong, along with those of Messiaen and one piece by Schoenberg and another work by Nielsen, among the "few works of genius written for the organ in the 20th century". That's not to say that every composer has been hailed by every musicologist and performer, but I respect the majority vote of people who have devoted their lifetimes to playing and analyzing music, even if it doesn't influence my taste, as is the case with Schubert.

You have ignored a large portions of my statements, and not bothered to show what's wrong with them. But you are surely well aware of that.

[djealnla]

To djealnla, your posts are some of the most arrogant, self-righteous nonsense that I've ever read.

Examples?

You are the perfect example of what I find wrong with the classical genre. As the product of a conservatory, I am surrounded by people of the most arrogant nature and there is no greater flaw as a musician or music lover. I am surrounded by those who are so fervent in their beliefs, they fail to see the logic, beauty and relevance in another person's opinion. The beauty in music is its diversity (which I'm sure you'll be able to argue and say "NO IT'S NOT!"), and those that present logical explanations that challenge your own viewpoints should be treasured and valued just as much as those who agree with you. I never stop marveling at one's unwillingness to see something bigger than oneself.

As my response to one of "gerryjay"'s posts shows, I do have respect for the opinion of highly educated musicians. Your accusation is therefore false.

Sometimes true art only reveals itself to those who deserve it - those with kind hearts and open minds. And in that reasoning, it is only logical that you cannot appreciate another viewpoint different than your own, and in turn cannot find the true beauty in music - you do not deserve it.

Notwithstanding your evidence for this claim, do you think you could provide me with a list of composers whose beauty has remained hidden to me?

In closing, I should point out that you are hypocrite, in that you accuse me of being close-minded, while you don't bother to point out a single flaw in my posts and use merely a bunch of emotional arguments.

[djealnla]

Of course he might have felt that his skill did not match that of, say, Mahler

Would you disagree (or agree) with this? That is, do you think that the best of Sorabji can legitimately be compared with, say the 4th movement of "the only Sixth" (pace A. Berg)?

[sordel]

Well, could you just tell us what are some of Sorabji's "flaws"? It shouldn't take more than five minutes (assuming you know his music reasonably well).

1. Undue reliance on dynamic extremes. This was something that my father noticed in O.C., and I think he's right: you can't always depend on very quiet passages or very loud passages to produce climaxes.

2. Undue reliance on ornamentation. This is what Sorabji gets from the Romantic tradition; having a scale going up and down while playing your motto does not make it automatically make it a musical development from playing it on its own.

3. Lack of transparency in contrapuntal writing. I think that in good counterpoint the lines should continue to make musical sense to an attentive listener and I think that some of Sorabji's thicker textures "get away from him" a bit.

4. Lack of "musicality". It's maybe "bourgeois" to ask for a tune, especially in Modern music, but I wouldn't object to more melody. It doesn't help that, like Busoni, when he borrows tunes they are of a sweetness that becomes bitter in the new harmonisation.

If you're hoping to come back with objections to my criticisms, I'd encourage you to reflect before doing so that these are subjective interpretations of objective phenomena. I think that these four phenomena, probably with undue length added, would all repulse the overwhelming majority of potential listeners.

[djealnla]

1. Undue reliance on dynamic extremes. This was something that my father noticed in O.C., and I think he's right: you can't always depend on very quiet passages or very loud passages to produce climaxes.

First of all, let me thank you for this reply.

With respect to dynamic extremes in the OC, what I would keep in mind is that both of the currently available recordings of it are flawed; Ogdon has been criticized mainly for extreme tempi and extreme dynamics, while Madge butchered the piece to quite a degree. Contrast their playing (in this area) with the following extract from a radio interview with Reinier van Houdt, who premiered Sorabji's 4th Symphony for Solo Piano:

Host: It's a score that, when I'm looking through it again now, shows very few things like bar lines, or temporal markings, or dynamics, so there seems to be rather much freedom for you; the task of making decisions is very much left to you?
RvH: To a certain level it is, yes, but really spectacular differences are notated by him. It's almost as if he is suggesting you to spare your energy, because really big eruptions are quite few indeed. There are really only a few instances where he writes a crescendo to fortissisimo, but for the rest it's mainly mezzo-forte, mezzo-piano.
Host: So it's not like Madam Ustvolskaya, the lady with the hammer, where there are only endless rows of fortissimo chords.
RvH: It's rather the opposite of that, he leaves out a lot, he suggests a lot, and ultimate lets you feel you should constrain yourself, that everything should sound rounded and relaxed rather than virtuosic or eruptive.

Source: https://www.sorabji-files.com/ps4transcript.php

2. Undue reliance on ornamentation. This is what Sorabji gets from the Romantic tradition; having a scale going up and down while playing your motto does not make it automatically make it a musical development from playing it on its own.

Hm. To certain degree you may have a point; however, not only are scales a part of his musical language, but I doubt that they abound in his fugues and dictate their form. Whether there is what some people term "pointless virtuosity", that could be argued.

3. Lack of transparency in contrapuntal writing. I think that in good counterpoint the lines should continue to make musical sense to an attentive listener and I think that some of Sorabji's thicker textures "get away from him" a bit.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. What I read is "in Sorabji's contrapuntally thicker moments, the voices frequently wander aimlessly". It is quite true that there is a substantial amount of highly chromatic passages in his inner voices. However, some other composers (whom Sorabji admired, incidentally) appear to have "gotten away" with this. Here is an interesting quote from Jonathan Powell:

"I find Medtner's harmony quite different from Rachmaninoff's, but then, I have been close to both their music for a quarter of a century. But certainly, initial impressions would bring to mind the many points in common. Both composers, for example, are fond of chromatic step-wise descent of inner voices in the harmonisation of relatively diatonic melodies."

Source: https://www.r3ok.com/index.php/topic,330.msg9381.html#msg9381

Considering Sorabji's melodies are far less diatonic than Medtner's or Rachmaninoff's, I would say that there is no particular problem here.

Then again, maybe I misunderstood you completely. Feel free to correct me.

4. Lack of "musicality". It's maybe "bourgeois" to ask for a tune, especially in Modern music, but I wouldn't object to more melody. It doesn't help that, like Busoni, when he borrows tunes they are of a sweetness that becomes bitter in the new harmonisation.

That could well be true, but let's keep in mind not only that Sorabji's melodies are (since you complain about an alleged "bitterness") well suited for his style, but that his treatment of melody is impressionistic in that the melody is frequently merely "implied" (think of something like Debussy's La Mer, for instance).

If you're hoping to come back with objections to my criticisms, I'd encourage you to reflect before doing so that these are subjective interpretations of objective phenomena. I think that these four phenomena, probably with undue length added, would all repulse the overwhelming majority of potential listeners.

"Undue length" obviously implies a "lack of substance". I don't think it is a defining characteristic of most of Sorabji's mature works.

[sordel]

With respect to dynamic extremes in the OC, what I would keep in mind is that both of the currently available recordings of it are flawed; Ogdon has been criticized mainly for extreme tempi and extreme dynamics, while Madge butchered the piece to quite a degree. [...]

"Undue length" obviously implies a "lack of substance". I don't think it is a defining characteristic of most of Sorabji's mature works.

Interesting reply. I have only Ogdon in O.C. - I have never heard Madge's version - but I believe that the problem with the dynamics is more present there than when I had the good fortune to see J.P. perform the work at the South Bank. It may be that Sorabji himself only wanted moderate increases in volume for his climaxes, but J. P. sounds authentically loud at the end of the fourth sonata, first toccata and Concerto Per Suonare. I think Sorabji did tend to use volume as a marker for a climax ... not just at the end of a work but during it as well.

The ornamentation problem is more evident in the variation and passacaglia movements, although as a matter of fact I rather like Sorabji's use of both of those genres. It's also difficult to complain about ornamentation in his impressionist works, since that's rather an element of that particular style, but isn't there just a sense sometimes that the rhetoric of his piano writing sometimes substitutes for the content? I'm not sure ... it's a matter of the listener's taste I would think, but I sometimes find that, and I doubt that I would be alone.

My point about lack of transparency might be reducible to an intolerance of his chromaticism, but I think I mean something more substantial. I think that composers who use chromatic elements tend to give the listener a chance to follow the atypical harmonies (e.g. the Shostakovich D flat fugue, which can easily be followed), but Sorabji doesn't make much in the way of concessions. I also suspect that there were days when he was writing for the eye and not the ear: any harmony works on paper, but sometimes I hear his work and think "really? you intended that harmony ... odd".

The question of musicality is an abstract one. For example, I don't like the fact that Sorabji chose the barcarole for the Passeggiata veneziana (it's not a melody that I like and I find his harmonisation of it to be verging on the depressing) but, despite the limitations of that theme, I like the work. Nevertheless, I do stick to the point that - without wanting him to ape Rachmaninoff or something - he could have given the listener more in the way of a "tune".

Finally, I don't object to what I term "undue length" because, to use that useful saying that I understand to be of Russian origin, "quantity has a quality all its own".