100,000 Year Long Composition.

[philip1304]

Hi,

I'm an artist and I just finished composing a 100,000 year long solo composition. That is to say, it take 100,000 years to play. I will be doing a 72 hour consecutive long durational performance of this piece from the 16th to the 19th. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this. The implications of a piece of this length and if you would attempt to play something like this and how ? Thanks, and Merry Christmas

Philip.

[kakeithewolf]

Ladies and gentleman, I now present to you: The second incarnation of John Cage.

[thalbergmad]

Modernistic bollocks.

I have composed a piece that lasts 13 billion years based on the background radiation of a quasar.

The premier will be held at the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope next week.

All are welcome.

Thal

[awesom_o]

Why don't you write a piece that's only 3-5 minutes long, but SOUNDS really good?

Surely if you have enough music in you to fill 100,000 years, you could condense it a bit and fit all of that goodness into a few minutes!

[austinarg]

Modernistic bollocks.

I have composed a piece that lasts 13 billion years based on the background radiation of a quasar.

The premier will be held at the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope next week.

All are welcome.

Thal

I can only bring myself to attend the concert if the orchestra is formed by no less than 482,295 banjos.

[thalbergmad]

That would sound great.

Thal

[kakeithewolf]

Why don't you write a piece that's only 3-5 minutes long, but SOUNDS really good?

Surely if you have enough music in you to fill 100,000 years, you could condense it a bit and fit all of that goodness into a few minutes!

If three to five minutes a good piece made, then we wouldn't have sonatas, concerti, The Road, or pretty much anything by Sorabji.

[acpiano]

My suggestion is, before you start composing next time, try to listen to a complete performance of Satie's Vexation in complete solitude confinement. See if that changes your mind!

[thalbergmad]

or pretty much anything by Sorabji.

True, but that would be a positive point.

Thal

[ahinton]

True, but that would be a positive point.

What would? "Pretty much anything by Sorabji" in the present context suggests that Sorabji wrote only works of great length, which a casual glance at the page count and duration detail in the catalogue of works on www.sorabji-archive.co.uk will immediately confirm to be very far from the case; apart from the many pieces of his that would fit into a conventional length half of a programme, there's the Transcendental studies - yes, a daunting prospect at more than seven hours in total but, since there are 100 of them, its pretty obvious that many of them are no longer (and some are actually shorter) than some of the études of Chopin, Liszt and Alkan.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sometimes, you take the bait too easily.

Thal

[philip1304]

I thought it was an interesting concept. The fact that the piece's capacity is from the outset so disproportionate to the capcity of the performer, but there can be an attempt to achieve a proportion by playing it? And the possibility of failure always remains, which is an integral part of the piece. I'm not a pianist or a composer. I'm a sculptur. I was just looking to see how you, as performers, would react upon encountering a piece like this. Also if I may ask, what would be the protocol for breaks for a performance of 72 hours, I'm not allowing sleep or breaks to exceed 15 minutes. If you had any advice that would be swell. Thanks.

Philip

[pianoman53]

So why compose if you're not a composer? -.-

I have a question though:
Why?
There is this painting, that is just a blue square. First I didn't like it, then some teacher told me "yes, but no one ever thought about that before!", and I then thought it was cool. Then I though "there is a reason that no one thought of it before". What is the point of writing a piece that can't be performed, more than just for the sake of writing an insanely long piece?

Everyone can write a piece that will take 100 million years to perform, but if the only point of the piece is to be long, then there isn't just something, but a lot of things, missing.

[philip1304]

Yes of course it will be viewed as a meaningless act. The thought of performing a piece like this is absurd. But it can be performed. For example, if i began playing it for 30 years, then my son played it for 30 years, then his son and so on. It becomes something else entirely then. Its not just about succeeding though, its about failing too, how do you approach something that seems to defeat you immediatly? You make some really great points, but I just find that there is a point to doing something, simply because I am doing it. I don't view it as just 'an insanely long piece'. But if you do, that is equally valid.

[pianoman53]

And then it became typical 21st century "philosophical music", when it's more about the idea, than about the music. Like those pieces that are physically impossible to play, just because of that. Suddenly it's not about music, but about something else. Then I lose respect for the composer. Music then becomes something that isn't meant to be listened to, but discussed among "the intellectuals". As in, the world would be exactly the same of you didn't write the piece, as if you did, simply because it's not about the piece, but about the idea.

[philip1304]

But is music only something that you listen too?

[pianoman53]

Ofc not, but it's clearly the essence. I don't only listen to Beethoven, or Bach. But without listening it's pointless.
It's like food without tasting, or paintings without looking.

[philip1304]

That's true. But I think its really interesting to think of music that you don't have to listen to, paintings that you dont have to see, and food that you don't have to taste. I'm sure many will think that's pointless, but I think it's worth my thought at least.

[pianoman53]

So what then? I would sort of understand if you had a magnetic field or somthing that people walked through, and then they felt as if they would have listened to a piece. But to just make a discussion... It's nothing I admire in composers of today

[ahinton]

Sometimes, you take the bait too easily.

What a surprising response, especially from you whom I'd have thought would instad have complained that I was using this thread as another opportunity to publicise The Sorabji Archive! Never mind; sometimes it's nice to be surprised!

Best,

Alistair

[kakeithewolf]

True, but that would be a positive point.

Thal

Whether or not that is a positive thing is quite debatable. I personally would find that to be quite a loss.

What would? "Pretty much anything by Sorabji" in the present context suggests that Sorabji wrote only works of great length, which a casual glance at the page count and duration detail in the catalogue of works on www.sorabji-archive.co.uk will immediately confirm to be very far from the case; apart from the many pieces of his that would fit into a conventional length half of a programme, there's the Transcendental studies - yes, a daunting prospect at more than seven hours in total but, since there are 100 of them, its pretty obvious that many of them are no longer (and some are actually shorter) than some of the études of Chopin, Liszt and Alkan.

Best,

Alistair

True, many of his works are short, a detail I pretty hastily omitted. What would have probably been a good statement was that pretty much all of Sorabji's grandest piano works wouldn't fit that time.

I may not have well stated my point in the original post, though. I was trying to imply that if we set a limit on what we would listen to (especially a limit so short), we would miss out on some magnificent pieces: Piece that tell stories through music, displays of magnificent virtuosity, and pieces that take us on a journey through the world the composer wishes to convey.

It's somewhat odd that I have this opinion, however. I'm not a fan of Classic era or Romantic era concerti, if only for the reason that a lot of them focused a little too heavily on virtuosity in my opinion.

[thalbergmad]

What a surprising response, especially from you whom I'd have thought would instad have complained that I was using this thread as another opportunity to publicise The Sorabji Archive!

Anyone who visits this place regularly would have seen  www.sorabji-archive.co.uk a few hundred times already, so i guess another few will not hurt.

Thal

[ahinton]

Anyone who visits this place regularly would have seen  www.sorabji-archive.co.uk a few hundred times already, so i guess another few will not hurt.

I trust that your guesswork here will not have been misplaced!

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

I thought it was an interesting concept.

To the extent that it is, it's been done.  Not quite 100,000 years, but the idea is the same. You would be accused of being derivative.