VIDEO: Prelude in C Minor BWV 999 by J.S. Bach

[michael_sayers]

I am focused on you and what you present and write here (not "everything about you" as you say, which I do not in any case know, of course), so the size of picture that I can and need to see is of necessity and by definition confined to that.
I'm not sure what you mean by this but I would still ask whether you mean "eable" or "encourage" as though "anything goes".
I've mentioned this only twice and would have done so just once had you not taken it out of context and misunderstood my reason for so doing. His performances were indeed so woefully substandard as to be barely recognisable. I wouldn't expect you to "know" that but, as it was the general consensus of opinion among those who heard him and I personally ought to have at least some idea as to its qualities, you might at least consider taking my own and others' word for it!
Again, your meaning is unclear. Most Sorabji performances have been excellent. There are now many recordings of it that are shining examples of this.
You mention just this one work, which is at best a somewhat bizarre (look at its chapter titles!) account of meetings between its author and a number of composers in which little evidence for their content or sources is provided and which hardly stands as a significant work of scholarship, yet to ignore (or at least omit mention of) as you do works of true Liszt and Busoni scholarship - Walker, Howard, Dent, Searle, Beaumont, Sitsky et al sounds not dissimilar to the dismissal of someone who prefers to rely solely upon Abell. I suppose that I ought to be surprised at you for that, but sadly I cannot say that I am.
It has bearing upon many things.
What isn't? If by "it" you mean this thead topic, it's surely about exactly that!

Whilst Urtext fetishism has indeed wreaked havoc at times in the past, there is the world of difference between strict and unyielding adherence to that and the kind of thing that you appear to believe falls into the category of "freedom and creative spirit" in performance which, as I wrote previously, smacks almost of an "anything goes" attitude to which you invariably resort when seeking to justify your own interpretations when they're challenged.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

You and a microscopic per cent of the human population may think of the recordings of Sorabji's music as excellent, but for music which has been available for so long it is hardly success measured by any reasonable standard to have the appreciation of such a small per cent of the population.

You are repeating exactly what I have posited, which is an elitist definition of artistic success and premised here on a particular and elitist musicology which finds its truths in notational symbols and in ritualistic and morbid vexations about composers' intentions rather than in the living, breathing and palpable response of minds and hearts in 2015 - or, rather, I should say lack of response, because pretty much that is what Sorbaji's music is getting at the moment when considered on a full spectrum basis.

As for Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers, the point is not that the sources can not be proven - although Arthur Abell was one of the great music journalists during the 19th century - the point is that you dismiss the sources even though you can not disprove them and that you do not give balanced, objective consideration to evidence.  Historians, in music or otherwise, give appropriate and judicious weight to ALL extant sources of information.

You mention other authors.  Why do you want to shift discussion away from Arthur M. Abell?  Maybe because I have exposed your lack of objectivity toward his Talks With Great Composers?  Objective scholarship doesn't use words like "bizarre", it talks about what IS or IS NOT, and what MAY BE or MAY NOT BE, and with non-biased conclusions.

All you know is that the book exists and that you can not prove or disprove the sources or the truth and accuracy of the material.

Given Arthur M. Abell's long career as a music journalist, and his regularly being cited as a source apart from this one book, one might reasonably presume that he knew how to get his facts straight.

[michael_sayers]

By presentation, I was really referring to the context and manner of performances (ie events to be distantly respected, rather than enjoyed). I maintain it was better in Cziffra's time: specifically I would contrast the almost complete absence of classical music now (other than the Proms) from national TV, with, going back to c 1970, the fact that my teacher interviewed Boulez, Argerich, made a programme on Alkan with Ronald Smith, etc, etc - and these were nationally broadcast on primetime TV. I remain suspicious that the critical attack on Cziffra was partly because audiences were enjoying themselves TOO MUCH, threatening ossified recital conventions. I condemn the attitude that pianism is about regurgitation of the printed text and the attitude that recreative pianism is an act of narcissism by the performer.

The audiences being told they have been enjoying themselves too much, and the rigid 1950s style musicology prevalent then and now - maybe these two things are connected?  The persons in power in the classical music world wouldn't want the audiences too enjoy themselves too much, because then and while classical music could in consequence become important to a lot more than 3% of the population, this necessary means of this would "explode" the musicological illusions of the small and well entrenched minority in power.

[michael_sayers]

Cziffra, Busoni and Liszt are widely admired by critics, scholars, performers and listeners alike - more so, indeed, than was the case half a century or so ago when there were nothing like the number of recordings of Liszt and Busoni as there are now!
You do love painting with the broadest of brushes in primary colours, don't you?! (not to mention splashing the paint around indiscriminately). Would you care to cite the specific Webern references? Webern conducted Mozart on occasion; his teacher Schönberg revered Mozart so much that he famously once chided someone who described him (Schönberg) as an auto-didact (which to a large extent he actually was) with "I am a pupil of Mozart!" Where and when did this alleged REPUDIATION (love the capitals!) commence and to what would you ascribe it? Speaking as a 20th/21st century composer myself, I presume that you include my work in this accusatory dismissal, but what of much of Busoni's which was composed in the 20th century - or Sorabji's? - or that of any number of the tends of thousands of composers active during the past 115 years or so whose music is performed, broadcast and recorded? Sweeping generalisations without a shred of evidence or even any effort to provide some does you no favours whatsoever.

Best,

Alistair

You are missing the point, Alistair.  We are talking about classical music and piano playing in 2015.  In 2015, only a minuscule per cent of the population knows of Liszt, Cziffra and Busoni.

I can look up and identify the Webern reference with the quote if you are interested, but I won't have a copy of the particular volume of lectures here in my possession to quote it verbatim.

I admire your work as a composer, Alistair, and also that of Sorabji and Busoni.  I paint with a broad brush because this is an internet post, not a 300 page tome on the history of 20th century music.  It also is true that not all piano competitions have a 20th century music requirement, or a commissioned work by a 21st century composer.  In the main what I have stated here is, nonetheless, true.

Fact is, one has to ask why much of this music doesn't compete well on a commercial basis with 97% of the music market.

The elitist view is that the public is too dim to understand the music; I rather pin to focus on the musicology of the performers.  I do not think that one should ever blame an audience for a musical failure or a lack of music content competitiveness.

Ultimately the performers decide all, because they are the ones who decide in the first place that the music is for one reason or another worth performing, and they decide in what style the music is to be played in order that it will achieve success, so the burden (in my opinion) is 100% on the performers.

[michael_sayers]

All that said, there's a world of difference between the imaginative interpretations of Cziffra, Cherkassky et al and the apparent MS "anything goes" situation!

Best,

Alistair

What is wrong with "anything goes"?  Don't you believe in freedom of expression?

[perfect_pitch]

What is wrong with "anything goes"?  Don't you believe in freedom of expression?

The problem with anything goes, is that some of those ideas fall upon the great, inspirational side of the spectrum, and what you did falls under the 'dear god, make it stop - of all things holy, make it stop'.

That's the honest to goodness truth. Sorry.

[michael_sayers]

. . . one day I learn how to click the right links here . . . LOL . . . I am editing a little grammar, and I'll be back later.

[ahinton]

You and a microscopic per cent of the human population may think of the recordings of Sorabji's music as excellent, but for music which has been available for so long it is hardly success measured by any reasonable standard to have the appreciation of such a small per cent of the population.

I did not mention the quality of Sorabji recordings for any reason other than to point up that the example of the deficient pianist (who's not recorded any Sorabji) has proved to be an exception yet, not atypically, you ascribe some other contextual reason to it. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not talking here about what percentage of the population has appreciated it but about the small percentage of public airings of Sorabji have been well less than adequate.

You are repeating exactly what I have posited, which is an elitist definition of artistic success and premised here on a particular and elitist musicology which finds its truths in notational symbols and in ritualistic and morbid vexations about composers' intentions rather than in the living, breathing and palpable response of minds and hearts in 2015 - or, rather, I should say lack of response, because pretty much that is what Sorbaji's music is getting at the moment when considered on a full spectrum basis.

Nonsense! Again, I'm not talking about how many recordings of his work sell but about the quality of the performences that have been recorded! What is a "full spectrum basis"? Have you listened to any Sorabji recordings from which you might be in a position to contriubte some intelligent comment? Don't composers intentions count at all for you? Personally, I love it when an intelligent and sensitive performer finds a better way of doing something that I've written than I've written myself!

As for Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers, the point is not that the sources can not be proven - although Arthur Abell was one of the great music journalists during the 19th century - the point is that you dismiss the sources even though you can not disprove them and that you do not give balanced, objective consideration to evidence.  Historians, in music or otherwise, give appropriate and judicious weight to ALL extant sources of information.

Whilst your last sentence is of course true, Abell's work is not the product of scholarly research, nor indeed does it especially pretend to be so. My point was to contrast the sheer paucity of evidence-based material in Abell's work with the massive amount of it in the work of scholars such as those whom I mentioned.

You mention other authors.  Why do you want to shift discussion away from Arthur M. Abell?  Maybe because I have exposed your lack of objectivity toward his Talks With Great Composers?  Objective scholarship doesn't use words like "bizarre", it talks about what IS or IS NOT, and what MAY BE or MAY NOT BE, and with non-biased conclusions.

I want to shift discussion towards those other authors for reasons cited above; there's nothing of the fantasist or fanciful in their works, which are the product of immense labours in diligent bona fide research. As to my use of the word "bizarre", just revisit those chapter titles and compare the approach that they identify with the work of those scholars!

All you know is that the book exists and that you can not prove or disprove the sources or the truth and accuracy of the material.

Whilst indeed I cannot and do not pretend to be able to do this, nor could the author, whereas in the work of genuine scholars many things can indeed be proved.

Given Arthur M. Abell's long career as a music journalist, and his regularly being cited as a source apart from this one book, one might reasonably presume that he knew how to get his facts straight.

You can presume but you cannot be certain, whereas genuine scholars' work is usually peer-revewed and cites as many information sources as possible.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You are missing the point, Alistair.  We are talking about classical music and piano playing in 2015.  In 2015, only a minuscule per cent of the population knows of Liszt, Cziffra and Busoni.

But this is a relative minority (pardon the expression!) within a relative minority; the vast majority of the world's population wouldn't know Mahler's Ninth Symphony from Simpson's or The Marriage of Figaro from The Midsummer Marriage in any case!

I can look up and identify the Webern reference with the quote if you are interested, but I won't have a copy of the particular volume of lectures here in my possession to quote it verbatim.

I am - but all in good time when it's convenient for you.

I admire your work as a composer, Alistair, and also that of Sorabji and Busoni.

Thank you very much.

I paint with a broad brush because this is an internet post, not a 300 page tome on the history of 20th century music.

Whilst of couse I understand the principle of that, I'm not seeking a 300 page tome on anything from you or even, ikndeed, a three lage essay; what I was referring to was your sweeping generalistations about the music of the past 115 years in terms of your perception of the intent of all of its composers and its reception by the public.

It also is true that not all piano competitions have a 20th century music requirement, or a commissioned work by a 21st century composer.  In the main what I have stated here is, nonetheless, true.

Would you advocate the ongoing fossilising of music so that it becomes increasingly a thing of the past? It sounds rather like it, given what it is hard to read other than your across the board dismissal of composers, their aims and intentions towards their public since around 1901 (excepting, it seems, Sorabji, Busoni and the present writer).

Fact is, one has to ask why much of this music doesn't compete well on a commercial basis with 97% of the music market.

By "much of this music" I take you to mean "much music from 20th and 21st centuries", but, if that is indeed what you mean, you ignore the fact that, as I implied above, most music falls into the same boat regardless of when it was written. If anything, things ae better today than once they were in this regard, notwithstanding the widespread public acceptance of musics that we might say fall outside the realms of the so-called "classical". Look at Liszt, for example; Sorabji once bemoaned in print that 95% (OK, a little less than 97, to be sure, but a very large proportion nevertheless) of Liszt's music is unknwon to the public; it certainly isn't now!

The elitist view is that the public is too dim to understand the music; I rather pin to focus on the musicology of the performers.  I do not think that one should ever blame an audience for a musical failure or a lack of music content competitiveness.

Ultimately the performers decide all, because they are the ones who decide in the first place that the music is for one reason or another worth performing, and they decide in what style the music is to be played in order that it will achieve success, so the burden (in my opinion) is 100% on the performers.

Since when did an orchestral player decide what to play? (and don't forget that there are hundreds of thousands of them the world over). Not all soloists always do so either.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What is wrong with "anything goes"?  Don't you believe in freedom of expression?

Within reasonable confines, of course - go outside of those and what the performer/s in his/her/their "expressive freedoms" is/are doing is paying less and less attention to what the composer has asked for.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

When you say that public airings of Sorabji's music have been less than adequate, the question becomes less than adequate for what purpose.  What is true is that they have been less than adequate to advance knowledge and appreciation of Sorabji's music beyond the 3% of the music market which is classical.  When I talk about "full spectrum", this is in reference to the entire music market.  There was Lisztomania in the 1800s.  In the 1900s we had Beatlesmania.  There can be something akin to Lisztomania again and involving classical music, but it can not be accomplished while respecting the illusions of 1950s style musicology and no matter which composer or composers' music is involved.  The closest to this achieved by a pianist, in recent times and with the 1950s musicology, was accomplished by Van Cliburn.  And yet, audiences and adulation of Van Cliburn seem to have been quite tame compared to the over-the-top manias associated with Liszt and The Beatles.

As far as the intentions of the composers go, such inquiry has about it an aura almost of medieval Scholasticism, don't you agree?  A real artist should not need to look up his interpretation of a Chopin work in a book which describes, and according to a Chopin pupil, how Chopin played it, should he?  If The Piano Master Classes of Franz Liszt, 1884-1886: Diary Notes of August Göllerich were lost forever, does that mean that no one would ever be able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the related works by Liszt?  Does a real artist need to figure out his style of piano playing and his interpretations from a book?

You are quite right that Liszt's music has come to greater and increasing awareness, even continuing in the last several years. This is due to urgent emotional and spiritual needs which his music fulfills, and the greater freedom allowed and even NECESSARY in the performance of his piano music compared with that of other composers' piano music and which speaks directly to those needs.  Liszt, as a pianist, stands against EVERYTHING the 1950s style of musicology represents.  This fits in very well with what I have forecast in this thread. It is all very interconnected and the stage is increasingly well set for the pot not only soon to boil, but in due course to boil over.

Of course Abell's Talks With Great Composers is not the product of scholarly research. This is because he knew the composers in person and wrote a book that presents the contents of his interviews with him.  That makes it "grade A" source material.  Arthur M. Abell is THE source for the information he provides.  It is just as viable as other "grade A" sources such as letters of Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt, and many other items.  They didn't need to cite sources in their letters, their letters are there to be cited by scholars.  The same goes for the music journalism of Arthur M. Abell.

In time, as with the new music brought forth in the romantic era after the path was cleared by the political and social revolutions of the late 1700s, we will have a new type of music.  How will music composed in the 20th century through to today fit into that future?

One thing I know is that classical musicians, and at some time well into the 22nd century, and as with their brethren of today in other fields of music, won't care very much about what any composers' intentions are or were.  And that is at the far end of how long it may take everything forecast in this thread to transpire.  Events could happen at a far quicker pace in our high tech, and also high risk, interconnected age which is not that of horses, carts and candles, as with the 18th century onward into the romantic era of the 19th century.

I am expecting things to get moving in my lifetime.

We already have Fazil Say, and his 12000+ YouTube subscribers.  Who is next?  They aren't far in the offing.


Mvh,
Michael

[8_octaves]

Hi Michael and Alistair,

Busoni

...is dead. He was too cosmopolitan.    

"For the Germans too Italian, and for the Italians too German". His opus of works isn't easily to order or to classify in groups of adherent genres, in which the pieces could be easily associated to one another. His style seems to be too versatile and too "chameleonic", so classicist-people of HIS time might not have liked his music too much.

But today, Busoni comes out of his grave   . mhh..the Red-Indian-Diary is so nice!!!  

Ah, and he had some students. One of which, my sources say, was admired by Sorabji: Petri. But Sorabji liked Busoni, too, I think.

Sorabji

...is dead, too. Obstacles to revive him are given. Some pieces too long, scores not on IMSLP, but some of them in libraries, as I could see, or in Alistairs archive, but to make such composers known, part of his works should be freely accessible as public domain.

For myself, I think I would like the very short pieces, ( aren't they the "frammenti aforistici" ? ) . Then, I've heard that Sorabji himself did the first performance of the "opus clavicembalisticum". Does anybody know what the reviews said to the performance?
( I only want to make sure that he REALLY could play his own works    - because otherwise he would have had to veto his own performances of his works, too.   ) .

The performance of the Opus clavicembalisticum by Ogdon was already mentioned, I think. And I think it must have been very good.

But : Do Busoni and Sorabji really have a future? We'll see. There are chances, I think.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[ahinton]

When you say that public airings of Sorabji's music have been less than adequate, the question becomes less than adequate for what purpose.

No, the question is why do you claim that I said so when I said tht the opposite is the case and, I cited just one exception of a public performance; do you actually read what's written or, if so, do you "arrange" and "interpret" it to suit yourself before responding?

What is true is that they have been less than adequate to advance knowledge and appreciation of Sorabji's music beyond the 3% of the music market which is classical.

Who are you to claim that and on what evidence other than the false statement that recordings of his work have been inadequate?

When I talk about "full spectrum", this is in reference to the entire music market.  There was Lisztomania in the 1800s.  In the 1900s we had Beatlesmania.  There can be something akin to Lisztomania again and involving classical music, but it can not be accomplished while respecting the illusions of 1950s style musicology and no matter which composer or composers' music is involved.  The closest to this achieved by a pianist, in recent times and with the 1950s musicology, was accomplished by Van Cliburn.  And yet, audiences and adulation of Van Cliburn seem to have been quite tame compared to the over-the-top manias associated with Liszt and The Beatles.

The Beatles were aiming for and were able to secure a much wider audience than Liszt in the days when there were no broadcasts or recordings; furthermore, how often did Liszt, an incredibly prolific composer, write principally to court popularity? Liszt and the Beatles were largely seeking to attract quite different "markets" for their respective work; that's quite an over-simplification, I know, but there's ample veracity in it nonetheless.

As far as the intentions of the composers go, such inquiry has about it an aura almost of medieval Scholasticism, don't you agree?  A real artist should not need to look up his interpretation of a Chopin work in a book which describes, and according to a Chopin pupil, how Chopin played it, should he?  If The Piano Master Classes of Franz Liszt, 1884-1886: Diary Notes of August Göllerich were lost forever, does that mean that no one would ever be able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the related works by Liszt?  Does a real artist need to figure out his style of piano playing and his interpretations from a book?

No, but there'd be little point in such books if they were only ever read by scholars and not performers.

You are quite right that Liszt's music has come to greater and increasing awareness, even continuing in the last several years. This is due to urgent emotional and spiritual needs which his music fulfills, and the greater freedom allowed and even NECESSARY in the performance of his piano music compared with that of other composers' piano music and which speaks directly to those needs.

It's also down to willingness on the part of performers and record companies to explore his work far more thoroughly. That said, there are ways in which to play his work convincingly and ways in which not to.

 Liszt, as a pianist, stands against EVERYTHING the 1950s style of musicology represents.

He might well have done but, apart from the fact of your seeminly being hooked upon that subject almost to the point of obsession, how many performers from the 1950s were the slavish adherents of it that you appear to imply to have been the case?

Of course Abell's Talks With Great Composers is not the product of scholarly research.

Well, at least you appreciate that!

This is because he knew the composers in person and wrote a book that presents the contents of his interviews with him.  That makes it "grade A" source material.

Only to the extent that it can be rusted as such!

Arthur M. Abell is THE source for the information he provides.

That, I have long suspected, is part of the trouble!

It is just as viable as other "grade A" sources such as letters of Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt, and many other items.  They didn't need to cite sources in their letters, their letters are there to be cited by scholars.  The same goes for the music journalism of Arthur M. Abell.

No. The content of those letters, once reliably authenticated, may be read, in Abell's case, all that there is to read is what Abell claims his subjects said to him.

In time, as with the new music brought forth in the romantic era after the path was cleared by the political and social revolutions of the late 1700s, we will have a new type of music.  How will music composed in the 20th century through to today fit into that future?

We're having new types of music all the time and we always have had since long before the late 18th century! How the music of any particular time will fit into a future that none of us is able to predict cannot possibly be guessed; for many years now since the dawn of recorded and broadcast music (and before, too, if it comes to that), some music has remained in focus and others have fallen out of it while the fate of much more of it has fluctuated; also, some music has "travelled" more successfully better from one place to another than has other music. Who can say what might happen in the future. You can't and nor can I!

One thing I know is that classical musicians, and at some time well into the 22nd century, and as with their brethren of today in other fields of music, won't care very much about what any composers' intentions are or were.

If that turned out to be true, there may as well not have been the composers in the first place - but it's not. I'm not an universal fan of the HIPP movement but its very existence nevertheless demonstrates an interest in trying to discover more of the composers' intentions and listener expectations than was once the case; the same goes for score editors, be they those who edit the scores of Sorabji that we supply or the scholars who have edited Bach and Chopin.

And that is at the far end of how long it may take everything forecast in this thread to transpire. Events could happen at a far quicker pace in our high tech, and also high risk, interconnected age which is not that of horses, carts and candles, as with the 18th century onward into the romantic era of the 19th century.

They will happen quicker, of course but, because the information available will only ever increase and not decrease, we'll know more in time about performance practice, composers' intentions and the rest than we once did. In any case, if composers' intentions are of such minor importance as you seem to advocate, why bother to compose?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Ah, and he [Busoni] had some students. One of which, my sources say, was admired by Sorabji: Petri. But Sorabji liked Busoni, too, I think.

Your sources are indeed correct and Sorabji adored Busoni's music and playing
 

[Sorabji]...is dead, too. Obstacles to revive him are given. Some pieces too long, scores not on IMSLP, but some of them in libraries, as I could see, or in Alistairs archive, but to make such composers known, part of his works should be freely accessible as public domain.

But who would pay for that? ALL of his known scores are available from the archive because we've made them so; new editions (all the recent ones being typeset) have been made and continue to be made by performes and scholars and are added to our catalogue upon release. IMSLP holds noting because they're all in copyright and, as that copyright belongs to us, it's our responsibility to ensure that the material is all widely distributed, which cannot be done without incurring costs!

For myself, I think I would like the very short pieces, ( aren't they the "frammenti aforistici" ? ) . Then, I've heard that Sorabji himself did the first performance of the "opus clavicembalisticum". Does anybody know what the reviews said to the performance?

We have most of the published reviews.

But : Do Busoni and Sorabji really have a future? We'll see. There are chances, I think.[/quote]
They've each had vastly more exposure than was once the case! All four of Busoni's operas have been produced, his piano concerto's been recorded many times, &c. &c. and there must by now be almost 40 CD recordings of or including Sorabji's music when 35 years ago there were none.

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

 But who would pay for that?

The people who get interested in his music, when they have free access to 10 or 15 short, but very nice pieces of Sorabji ( if there are such ) . The will get interested, and then buy.

What people don't know - they don't buy. There are people who don't even know the name Sorabji. When they hear it, they think it's an informatics-teacher at a university. Or a librarian. ( btw.: a very important librarian. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Ranganathan

"Ferro" Busoni wrote the following in a letter, describing Sorabji ( I try to translate approximately ) :

"A fine, unusual head, in spite of his ugly music, which is a primeval forest / jungle with much of weeds and thornbush, BUT exotic and eugonic / abundant."

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

No, the question is why do you claim that I said so when I said tht the opposite is the case and, I cited just one exception of a public performance; do you actually read what's written or, if so, do you "arrange" and "interpret" it to suit yourself before responding?
Who are you to claim that and on what evidence other than the false statement that recordings of his work have been inadequate?
The Beatles were aiming for and were able to secure a much wider audience than Liszt in the days when there were no broadcasts or recordings; furthermore, how often did Liszt, an incredibly prolific composer, write principally to court popularity? Liszt and the Beatles were largely seeking to attract quite different "markets" for their respective work; that's quite an over-simplification, I know, but there's ample veracity in it nonetheless.
No, but there'd be little point in such books if they were only ever read by scholars and not performers.
It's also down to willingness on the part of performers and record companies to explore his work far more thoroughly. That said, there are ways in which to play his work convincingly and ways in which not to.
He might well have done but, apart from the fact of your seeminly being hooked upon that subject almost to the point of obsession, how many performers from the 1950s were the slavish adherents of it that you appear to imply to have been the case?
Well, at least you appreciate that!
Only to the extent that it can be rusted as such!
That, I have long suspected, is part of the trouble!
No. The content of those letters, once reliably authenticated, may be read, in Abell's case, all that there is to read is what Abell claims his subjects said to him.
We're having new types of music all the time and we always have had since long before the late 18th century! How the music of any particular time will fit into a future that none of us is able to predict cannot possibly be guessed; for many years now since the dawn of recorded and broadcast music (and before, too, if it comes to that), some music has remained in focus and others have fallen out of it while the fate of much more of it has fluctuated; also, some music has "travelled" more successfully better from one place to another than has other music. Who can say what might happen in the future. You can't and nor can I!
If that turned out to be true, there may as well not have been the composers in the first place - but it's not. I'm not an universal fan of the HIPP movement but its very existence nevertheless demonstrates an interest in trying to discover more of the composers' intentions and listener expectations than was once the case; the same goes for score editors, be they those who edit the scores of Sorabji that we supply or the scholars who have edited Bach and Chopin.
They will happen quicker, of course but, because the information available will only ever increase and not decrease, we'll know more in time about performance practice, composers' intentions and the rest than we once did. In any case, if composers' intentions are of such minor importance as you seem to advocate, why bother to compose?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

There are many reasons why one may compose.  A composition could be about falling in love, a walk in the forest . . . Liszt's Au lac de Wallenstadt could be an expression of feelings related to time at the lake and in the company of Countess Marie d'Agoult . . . what does the reason to compose have to do with whether or not performers are to adhere to a particular arrangement of the notes and for all time?

When you ask about adherents to the 1950s style musicology, are you suggesting that Van Cliburn and many other great 20th century pianists were not musicians who followed the score?  Your request seems a bit disingenuous.  Van Cliburn spoke in interviews about how a musician must be faithful to the score - Nyiregyhazi, by contrast (and also Busoni) never said any such thing, especially as and with Nyiregyhazi's admiration and understanding of Busoni he KNEW that any score is always an arrangement - ALL the music in the piano repertoire consists of arrangements, one can not notate music for piano performance without in the process notating a particular arrangement of the music for piano.  It is as simple as that.

With Arthur M. Abell there is his reliability to back him up.  It is not the same, for instance, as with Anton Schindler writing about Beethoven, and there now being skepticism due to Anton Schindler having been caught distorting and misrepresenting some facts.  If Arthur M. Abell has ever been caught distorting or representing a fact at any time during his long career as a music journalist, please let me know, otherwise I rest my case about his reliability and veracity as an author and as a reliable source of information about the musical life, the composers, and the pianists, of the 19th century.

About predicting the future, when one has studied enough history and related subjects, patterns began to emerge.  History is a subject which seeks to achieve an ordered understanding of events, it isn't just a raw collection of facts disconnected from one another in separate volumes on a library shelf.

About the recordings and performances of Sorabji's music, anyone who takes on and performs that music deserves tremendous credit for doing so.  This doesn't mean that performing or recording the music and with a 1950s style musicology is going to win over society beyond the 3% and declining who participate in the classical music market - this is something that can not occur.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

About the recordings and performances of Sorabji's music, anyone who takes on and performs that music deserves tremendous credit for doing so.

No argument there!

This doesn't mean that performing or recording the music and with a 1950s style musicology is going to win over society beyond the 3% and declining who participate in the classical music market - this is something that can not occur.

I've no more idea what you're talking about than would the performers of this music; your irrelevant (in the context) obsesssion with "a 1950s style musicology" has no place whatsoever here other than in your own mind and recurring decimals are of likely interest only to professional mathematicians (although, that said, two of those have produced wonderful typeset editions of Sorabji!)...

Has the thought of just packing it all in here ever occurred to you, given the broad commonality of the various responses to your entreaties? Just curious...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

No argument there!
I've no more idea what you're talking about than would the performers of this music; your irrelevant (in the context) obsesssion with "a 1950s style musicology" has no place whatsoever here other than in your own mind and recurring decimals are of likely interest only to professional mathematicians (although, that said, two of those have produced wonderful typeset editions of Sorabji!)...

Has the thought of just packing it all in here ever occurred to you, given the broad commonality of the various responses to your entreaties? Just curious...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I have been doing my very best to answer your questions, as I should unless one believes in posting a recording and then ignoring the responses, so why would you ask if I have, "thought of packing it all in?"  This is an open thread, and you and others can post what they want, you all can have discussions between yourselves, and I can join in (or not) if I feel I have something to contribute.  This seems to be how these threads work.

If something needs to be "packed in", then you can, by no longer posting here, not contribute anything which may be worthy of a response from others, and thereby prevent those responses - but don't keep asking questions and then get on someone's case for answering.  Fact is, apart from the threads I initiate, I do tend very much to mind my own business at this website.

It is very odd that, given our shared appreciation - and presumably, also, understanding - of Franz Liszt and Ferruccio Busoni, that much between us would need to be asked or discussed.  Yet it hasn't gone without my notice that often champions of Franz Liszt and Ferruccio Busoni do stick very closely to the particular arrangement of the notes in published versions those composers' scores - contrary to the accurate and correct musicological observations of Busoni - and maybe this is the situation here as you do seem to be of the conclusion that not only is Sorabji's music only to be performed in the composers' personal arrangements for piano, but also and even with only the composers' personal preferences for tempo, and that it is to be this way for all eternity [but will grand pianos even be in production five million years from now - I don't see any reason to suppose this would be so].

But maybe I have misunderstood . . .

p.s. - I don't have an obsession with 1950s style musicology.  Far from it, I have hardly thought of the subject in many years and while I do thank you for stimulating me to think further upon it, nonetheless most hours of my days go to music composition, piano practice and sleep, and not to thoughts about the 1950s style musicology.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I have been doing my very best to answer your questions, as I should unless one believes in posting a recording and then ignoring the responses, so why would you ask if I have, "thought of packing it all in?"  This is an open thread, and you and others can post what they want, you all can have discussions between yourselves, and I can join in (or not) if I feel I have something to contribute.  This seems to be how these threads work.

And how they can be wrecked, too, if it comes to that. You make statements and will brook not the slightest challenge to them - not only about your communication with Liszt but about how music should or should - or can and cannot - be performed as though your thoughts on such matters are of greater importance than those of the composer as best we understand them.

It is very odd that, given our shared appreciation - and presumably, also, understanding - of Franz Liszt and Ferruccio Busoni, that much between us would need to be asked or discussed.  Yet it hasn't gone without my notice that often champions of Franz Liszt and Ferruccio Busoni do stick very closely to the particular arrangement of the notes in published versions those composers' scores - contrary to the accurate and correct musicological observations of Busoni - and maybe this is the situation here as you do seem to be of the conclusion that not only is Sorabji's music only to be performed in the composers' personal arrangements for piano, but also and even with only the composers' personal preferences for tempo, and that it is to be this way for all eternity [but will grand pianos even be in production five million years from now - I don't see any reason to suppose this would be so].

But maybe I have misunderstood . . .

It seems that you have. We all know that conventional musical notation is notable for its shortcomings in tems of the amount of information that it capable of providing to performers; that said, however, Liszt, Busoni and others sanction publication of their scores. Of course there's no one right and inviolable way to perform anything but, if the "anything goes" argument is permittd to take precedence over any other, then the composer will largely have wasted his/her time in taking the trouble to write scores and the publishers their time in publishing them. I have no idea what you mean by Sorabji's "personal arrangements for piano"; in any case, had you read Sorabji's scores, you would have found that performance directions, including tempi (there's just one instance of a metronom makr in his entire output) are unusually think on the ground, so your statement about this is unfounded and unresearched.

p.s. - I don't have an obsession with 1950s style musicology.  Far from it, I have hardly thought of the subject in many years and while I do thank you for stimulating me to think further upon it, nonetheless most hours of my days go to music composition, piano practice and sleep, and not to thoughts about the 1950s style musicology.

My statement about your apparent obsession with it stems solely from the number of instances within a short space of time that you have made references to it - no more, no less.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

And how they can be wrecked, too, if it comes to that. You make statements and will brook not the slightest challenge to them - not only about your communication with Liszt but about how music should or should - or can and cannot - be performed as though your thoughts on such matters are of greater importance than those of the composer as best we understand them.
It seems that you have. We all know that conventional musical notation is notable for its shortcomings in tems of the amount of information that it capable of providing to performers; that said, however, Liszt, Busoni and others sanction publication of their scores. Of course there's no one right and inviolable way to perform anything but, if the "anything goes" argument is permittd to take precedence over any other, then the composer will largely have wasted his/her time in taking the trouble to write scores and the publishers their time in publishing them. I have no idea what you mean by Sorabji's "personal arrangements for piano"; in any case, had you read Sorabji's scores, you would have found that performance directions, including tempi (there's just one instance of a metronom makr in his entire output) are unusually think on the ground, so your statement about this is unfounded and unresearched.
My statement about your apparent obsession with it stems solely from the number of instances within a short space of time that you have made references to it - no more, no less.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

The biggest shortcoming of conventional notation is that it notates only ONE arrangement of a composition.  Beethoven performed his fourth piano concerto differently every time, but was told that he had to choose ONE arrangement of the piano part for publication.

Every act of music notation for piano solo is an arrangement.

As for the "composers' intentions", this gets back to the rigid 1950s musicology and its goal of SAMENESS and PREDICTABILITY as to the arrangements of all music and for all performances and for all eternity.  To mention medieval Scholasticsm again, a real artist does not need to go through a catalogue of all possible permutations of a composers' intentions.  The simple fact is that fashions change, priorities change and instruments change, and this clinging to the composers' intentions  - and even though many such persons go AGAINST the composers intentions when they perform 19th century music because they play the music exactly as notated, do not asynchronize voices, and do not improvise during the performances - is really more about something psychological and elevating the composers to the status of Gods - Gods who, we are to believe, include among them J.S. Bach who is known to have, among other things, scuffled on the ground and in the dirt with an orchestra member.

You do not think that great music is of origin in divine inspiration, and yet you treat it as though it is sacred.  And I think - and know - that it is of divine origin, and I understand Busoni and that great music is meant by process of its origination to be free, and that to win freedom is its destiny.

You mentioned tempo preferences for Sorabji's music.  A real artist doesn't need any such knowledge to perform the music, and why would you, or the composer, wish to INTERFERE with the work and the inner sound world of a real artist?

These are good questions, in my opinion.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

The biggest shortcoming of conventional notation is that it notates only ONE arrangement of a composition.

Worse than that (as I sought to point out), it doesn't even do that much because it is constrained by itself in terms of the extent to which it can account fully and accurately for a composer's intentions. All composers recognise this and some composers are very economic in their recourse to performance directions whereas others are far more detailed and specific; consider, for example, Grainger's Country Gardens and Schönberg's Op. 25 Suite for piano and compare them to any one of Sorabji's mature works and this difference of approach will immediately reveal itself.

Beethoven performed his fourth piano concerto differently every time, but was told that he had to choose ONE arrangement of the piano part for publication.

Every act of music notation for piano solo is an arrangement.

That's a very Busonian concept, arguing as he did and as Ronald Stevenson later did that the borders between composition, transcription and arrangement are a good deal less clear than they might at first seem or that some people reckon them to be. In this, we are broadly in agreement; it's over the question of parameters and degree where we part company, in that once sufficient departures have been made from what the composer has notated, it might no longer be recognisable as that composer's work at all. Imagine distending Chopin's C# minor Scherzo to half an hour or more!

As for the "composers' intentions", this gets back to the rigid 1950s musicology and its goal of SAMENESS and PREDICTABILITY as to the arrangements of all music and for all performances and for all eternity.  To mention medieval Scholasticsm again, a real artist does not need to go through a catalogue of all possible permutations of a composers' intentions.  The simple fact is that fashions change, priorities change and instruments change, and this clinging to the composers' intentions  - and even though many such persons go AGAINST the composers intentions when they perform 19th century music because they play the music exactly as notated, do not asynchronize voices, and do not improvise during the performances - is really more about something psychological and elevating the composers to the status of Gods - Gods who, we are to believe, include among them J.S. Bach who is known to have, among other things, scuffled on the ground and in the dirt with an orchestra member.

Much of what you write makes sense here insofar as it goes but, once again, it's a matter of degree; wilfully countermanding or otherwise disregarding intentions that a composer has taken the trouble, subject to the shortcomings of conventional notation, to present and make clear is a quite different phenomenon from that which allows for no two live performances to be the same.

You do not think that great music is of origin in divine inspiration

Whilst I do not know precisely what you mean by "divine inspration", I have never expressed the thought that you accord to me here!

and yet you treat it as though it is sacred[/wuote]
What I do think is that, when a composer worthy of the name goes to the trouble of organising, working with and expressing his/her thoughts by notating them as best and as clearly as his/her chosen notation system and procedures allow, the result deserves at least to be treated with due respect rather than as a blueprint for performers to do just as they please regardless of any responsbility to try to present what the composer has done his/her best to express in the form of his/her intentions.

And I think - and know - that it is of divine origin, and I understand Busoni and that great music is meant by process of its origination to be free, and that to win freedom is its destiny.

Busoni was right but, in what you have presented and written here, I humbly suggest that you have misinterpreted his intentions in so saying just as you have with the performances that you present here.

You mentioned tempo preferences for Sorabji's music.  A real artist doesn't need any such knowledge to perform the music, and why would you, or the composer, wish to INTERFERE with the work and the inner sound world of a real artist?

The reductio ad absurdum of this statement would be twofold; firstly, "only the performer/s matter; the composer and his/her intentions are of scant consequence" and, secondly, "only performers, not composers, are artists with inner sound worlds that will accordingly brook no interference". You may inagne how that would come across to many people, especially composers! How it would come across to composer/performers would seem to be quite another and profoundly confusing matter but let's not get into that!

These are good questions, in my opinion.

You begin by considering valid points but then go well and truly off-piste; I have nevertheless sought to answer your questions as accurately and sympathetically as I am able.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Every act of music notation for piano solo is an arrangement.

I'm not going to comment on the more contentious aspects of this thread, but I would like to quote this, as not only do I completely agree, it is a profoundly important philosophical point, and as Alistair notes, endorsed by no less than Busoni.

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair and ronde_des_sylphe,

Of possible interest on the subject of tempo(s) and the variation thereof are these two recordings:

Schumann Fantasie Op. 17, Ivo Pogorelich pianist

and

Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2, Ervin Nyiregyhazi pianist
[contrary to the video information, this is only about a 15 minute recording; it is in a 19th century style of play with significant rolling of chords and other asynchronization of voices]

And here is another tremendous and superb example of not following the score - Bernhard Stavenhagen's 1905 piano roll of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12, with the music played "according to memories of Liszt" as per the roll manufacturer:

&index=43


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Hi Alistair and ronde_des_sylphe,

Of possible interest on the subject of tempo(s) and the variation thereof are these two recordings:

Schumann Fantasie Op. 17, Ivo Pogorelich pianist

I wish you hadn't linked to that. It's truly awful and the pianist is evidenced there as but a shadow of his former remarkable self. There's always been a tendency to outlandishness and waywardness on his part but it seems today that this is sadly most of what's left of what he was. He has had a very difficult life and, I suspect, done less than he might to ease it. An astonishing talent whose light seems now to have all but extinguished; very sad indeed. If you want to hear IP as the extraordinary pianist that once he was, try

and

Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2, Ervin Nyiregyhazi pianist
[contrary to the video information, this is only about a 15 minute recording; it is in a 19th century style of play with significant rolling of chords and other asynchronization of voices]

This likewise is bizarre, not least in the way it seems wilfully to distort phrase shapes; EN certainly had very considerable talent, but it is most poorly represented here.

And here is another tremendous and superb example of not following the score - Bernhard Stavenhagen's 1905 piano roll of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12, with the music played "according to memories of Liszt" as per the roll manufacturer:

&index=43

But at least the playing itself is very fine! No nasty wayward distortions of phrases and the rest. Stavenhagen was also a composer, of course.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I wish you hadn't linked to that. It's truly awful and the pianist is evidenced there as but a shadow of his former remarkable self. There's always been a tendency to outlandishness and waywardness on his part but it seems today that this is sadly most of what's left of what he was. He has had a very difficult life and, I suspect, done less than he might to ease it. An astonishing talent whose light seems now to have all but extinguished; very sad indeed. If you want to hear IP as the extraordinary pianist that once he was, try

This likewise is bizarre, not least in the way it seems wilfully to distort phrase shapes; EN certainly had very considerable talent, but it is most poorly represented here.
But at least the playing itself is very fine! No nasty wayward distortions of phrases and the rest. Stavenhagen was also a composer, of course.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

May these examples help to illustrate an aspect of my contention, that response to music which one hears is in many ways subjective - and maybe even essentially subjective - rather than allowing for objective knowledge of what is right or wrong?

About the Ivo Pogorelich performance of Schumann's Fantasie Op. 17: I think it has moments of great insight, and acceptance of it continues to grow with me and with every hearing, though I continue to have reservations; it does show, as you say, that Ivo is not technically the pianist he once was, but his technical reliability isn't what this link was meant to be about.

About the Nyiregyhazi performance of the slow movement from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2: I find it to be grand, majestic and sublime.  Phrase shapes are "distorted" for the purpose of achieving a large scale expression of structure over a large expression of time, rather than merely working from phrase to phrase without thought of the whole; I don't think Ivo Pogorelich is nearly as successful in doing this, and hence why I have reservations about what Ivo Pogorelich is doing with the Schumann Fantasy Op. 17

About the Bernhard Stavenhagen piano roll of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12: the playing is indeed fantastic, one might need to consider that piano rolls can be and were edited.  As you say, he was a composer, as too was Ervin Nyiregyhazi.  Based on what I have looked through of Stavenhagen's music, and compared with the several hundred pages of Nyiregyhazi manuscript photocopies in my possession (out of 13000+ pages of manuscript!), I rate Ervin Nyiregyhazi far higher in that regard.

The situation with Ervin Nyiregyhazi's music is that the bulk of it seems will soon be lost forever, probably in a trash bin.  I am told that the president of the college in Japan which hosted him is in jail and that the college is now defunct.  I have heard that already it seems that some materials ARE missing, and it seems that no one knows how to identify the location of the remainder.

Even if someone ranks Nyiregyhazi very low as a pianist and a composer, I think that maybe preservation of music materials is a worthy endeavor, and that one does not allow 13000 pages of music in the original manuscripts and/or microfilms thereof, to casually be tossed away into a trash bin.

One can think of Robert Franz's discovery of Bach manuscripts.  I don't think these Nyiregyhazi manuscripts will be nearly so fortunate in their fate, and I am very pessimistic about the outcome to be read about and discovered in the not too distant future.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

May these examples help to illustrate an aspect of my contention, that response to music which one hears is in many ways subjective - and maybe even essentially subjective - rather than allowing for objective knowledge of what is right or wrong?

Of course it's subjective and indeed should be so but when a general consensus develops around particular performances as being wholly inadequate, unidiomatic and unrepresentative, it can and should hardly be ignored.

About the Ivo Pogorelich performance of Schumann's Fantasie Op. 17: I think it has moments of great insight, and acceptance of it continues to grow with me and with every hearing, though I continue to have reservations; it does show, as you say, that Ivo is not technically the pianist he once was, but his technical reliability isn't what this link was meant to be about.

That's the trouble - or at least one of them - with this; it's bad enough on its own terms but the fact that it's almost possible at times to hear what he could and would have done with the work when he was at his peak makes the entire experience sadder than ever; listen to the beast that is the end of the second movement - often a high wire act for the most steely nerved and geographically adept of pianists - yet in the midst of this lacklustre and, frankly enerally weird performance, the sheaves of wrong notes in this notorious passage are notgable for their comparative absence. The Fantaisie is one of Schumann's greatest piano works but, despite its title, its structure is highly organised, disciplined and thoroughly thought through without a moment of meandering; you'd hardly know it from the leftovers of a performance that IP presents here. Did you listen to the young IP playing the Ravel?

About the Nyiregyhazi performance of the slow movement from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2: I find it to be grand, majestic and sublime.  Phrase shapes are "distorted" for the purpose of achieving a large scale expression of structure over a large expression of time, rather than merely working from phrase to phrase without thought of the whole

Well, there's a prime example of the manifestation of listener subjectivity for you! "A large scale expression of structure over a large expression of time" is the very opposite of what comes across to me in this performance and it is the oddest of odd distortions that are the principal reason for this; so much of the flow of this wonderful movement is effectively impeded by the pianist's strange conception of it and I have to say that, maverick though he often was, i;ve heard better from him than this.

I don't think Ivo Pogorelich is nearly as successful in doing this, and hence why I have reservations about what Ivo Pogorelich is doing with the Schumann Fantasy Op. 17

Not a lot to choose between them, frankly; there's unacceptable sloppiness in both and the results almost sound as though their perpetrators are struggling to concentrate sufficiently to hold the music together (which in at least one case is pretty certinly the case).

About the Bernhard Stavenhagen piano roll of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12: the playing is indeed fantastic, one might need to consider that piano rolls can be and were edited.  As you say, he was a composer, as too was Ervin Nyiregyhazi.  Based on what I have looked through of Stavenhagen's music, and compared with the several hundred pages of Nyiregyhazi manuscript photocopies in my possession (out of 13000+ pages of manuscript!), I rate Ervin Nyiregyhazi far higher in that regard.

I suspect that there has indeed been some judicious editing in the Stavenhagen!

The situation with Ervin Nyiregyhazi's music is that the bulk of it seems will soon be lost forever, probably in a trash bin.  I am told that the president of the college in Japan which hosted him is in jail and that the college is now defunct.  I have heard that already it seems that some materials ARE missing, and it seems that no one knows how to identify the location of the remainder.

Even if someone ranks Nyiregyhazi very low as a pianist and a composer, I think that maybe preservation of music materials is a worthy endeavor, and that one does not allow 13000 pages of music in the original manuscripts and/or microfilms thereof, to casually be tossed away into a trash bin.

Well, that would of course be sad if it happened. Surely a library somewhere would be prepared to take them (subject to the condition that they're in), provided that it could get its hands on them unimpeded?

One can think of Robert Franz's discovery of Bach manuscripts.  I don't think these Nyiregyhazi manuscripts will be nearly so fortunate in their fate, and I am very pessimistic about the outcome to be read about and discovered in the not too distant future.

Given your interest in him and his work and the fact that you are aware of this risk to his legacy, have you tried to make any approaches to libraries / archives for the purposes of ascertaining interest? If not - and if you'd consider doing so - good places to start might be the Franz Liszt Academy in Budapest, International Piano Archives in Maryland, the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, Pierpont Morgan in NYC, other US academic institutions and institutions in Britain such as British Library and Bodleian Library (although the first of these would probably be more interest had he been a British composer).

Just a thought...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Of course it's subjective and indeed should be so but when a general consensus develops around particular performances as being wholly inadequate, unidiomatic and unrepresentative, it can and should hardly be ignored.
That's the trouble - or at least one of them - with this; it's bad enough on its own terms but the fact that it's almost possible at times to hear what he could and would have done with the work when he was at his peak makes the entire experience sadder than ever; listen to the beast that is the end of the second movement - often a high wire act for the most steely nerved and geographically adept of pianists - yet in the midst of this lacklustre and, frankly enerally weird performance, the sheaves of wrong notes in this notorious passage are notgable for their comparative absence. The Fantaisie is one of Schumann's greatest piano works but, despite its title, its structure is highly organised, disciplined and thoroughly thought through without a moment of meandering; you'd hardly know it from the leftovers of a performance that IP presents here. Did you listen to the young IP playing the Ravel?
Well, there's a prime example of the manifestation of listener subjectivity for you! "A large scale expression of structure over a large expression of time" is the very opposite of what comes across to me in this performance and it is the oddest of odd distortions that are the principal reason for this; so much of the flow of this wonderful movement is effectively impeded by the pianist's strange conception of it and I have to say that, maverick though he often was, i;ve heard better from him than this.
Not a lot to choose between them, frankly; there's unacceptable sloppiness in both and the results almost sound as though their perpetrators are struggling to concentrate sufficiently to hold the music together (which in at least one case is pretty certinly the case).
I suspect that there has indeed been some judicious editing in the Stavenhagen!
Well, that would of course be sad if it happened. Surely a library somewhere would be prepared to take them (subject to the condition that they're in), provided that it could get its hands on them unimpeded?
Given your interest in him and his work and the fact that you are aware of this risk to his legacy, have you tried to make any approaches to libraries / archives for the purposes of ascertaining interest? If not - and if you'd consider doing so - good places to start might be the Franz Liszt Academy in Budapest, International Piano Archives in Maryland, the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, Pierpont Morgan in NYC, other US academic institutions and institutions in Britain such as British Library and Bodleian Library (although the first of these would probably be more interest had he been a British composer).

Just a thought...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

That "general consensus develops around particular performances as being wholly inadequate, unidiomatic and unrepresentative" is due to our environment of 1950s style musicology.  Musicians should ignore such consensus, and - as with Debussy - be willing to trust their instincts about what is beautiful.

I listened to the young Ivo Pogorelich playing the Ravel.  A good thing to observe: unlike many musicians, who play the same when they are 50, as when they are 40,30 or 20, Ivo Pogorelich is capable of change.  One can think as well of Vladimir Horowitz - who also frequently is criticized for trusting his own inner lights - and who right up until the end was experimenting with ever greater ranges of colour and effect.

The same, I suspect, is true of Nyiregyhazi.  Early recordings don't sound like the E.N. of the 1970s-1980s.  There is an audio recording of him playing the Grieg Concerto quite long ago, maybe in the very late 1920s, which would allow better insight on this, but the archive which holds it will not allow it to be heard, transferred or duplicated.

There actually isn't anything wrong with Nyiregyhazi's playing of the Rachmaninoff Concerto No. 2 apart from some wrong notes.  The interpretation is of extraordinary emotional insight, intensity and conviction.

I don't really have any standing in regard to the manuscripts and other materials in Japan.  The owner (if indeed any of of the materials are his personal property and did not belong to the defunct college) is in jail.  The rights owner to the music content lives in the Netherlands.  I think though that the possible owner of the manuscripts in Japan thinks of himself, too, as the owner of the music content.  There are these types of issues.

In our day of government crisis, with educational institutions and not only the government ones not too far behind as you will see, I don't think the I.P.A. [which is housed in a government university] would be a wise choice for recipient of the manuscripts.  Best, for now, would be to have the manuscripts physically and legally in private and competent hands - provided this is not, of course, the hands of a hoarder of the music content.


Mvh,
Michael

[themeandvariation]

Perhaps it has already been mentioned, (or, i suspect, already aware of ) the biography of Nyiregyhazi - "Lost Genius" ….  A very interesting read…..

[michael_sayers]

Perhaps it has already been mentioned, (or, i suspect, already aware of ) the biography of Nyiregyhazi - "Lost Genius" ….  A very interesting read…..

Hi themevariation,

It is very interesting, maybe though some of the subject matter relating to Nyiregyhazi is a bit toxic?  Such as with his relationship to his mother?

[ahinton]

That "general consensus develops around particular performances as being wholly inadequate, unidiomatic and unrepresentative" is due to our environment of 1950s style musicology.  Musicians should ignore such consensus, and - as with Debussy - be willing to trust their instincts about what is beautiful.

That "1950s style musicology" yet again! You're not by chance a pupil of Philip Glass, are you? What you seem incapable of accepting or unwilling to understand is that trusting to one's own instincts and tring to ta into the resource of the composer's are not mutually incompatible!

I listened to the young Ivo Pogorelich playing the Ravel.  A good thing to observe: unlike many musicians, who play the same when they are 50, as when they are 40,30 or 20, Ivo Pogorelich is capable of change.  One can think as well of Vladimir Horowitz - who also frequently is criticized for trusting his own inner lights - and who right up until the end was experimenting with ever greater ranges of colour and effect.

Whilst your pont about Horowitz is valid and you could as easily have made the same about Arrau who recorded certain Schubert sonatas three times, once when young, once in middle age and once quite late in life and, unsurprisingly, these differ from one another in certain particulars, you've missed the point entirely with Pogorelich - that point being that the changes that have come about in him are due to grave difficulties in his life and his management of it and are deteriorations, as the most casual listening to the Schumann and the Ravel demonstrate beyond doubt - but it's so sad a thing that this has happened to so fine an artist that I would rather say no more about it.

The same, I suspect, is true of Nyiregyhazi.  Early recordings don't sound like the E.N. of the 1970s-1980s.  There is an audio recording of him playing the Grieg Concerto quite long ago, maybe in the very late 1920s, which would allow better insight on this, but the archive which holds it will not allow it to be heard, transferred or duplicated.

Again, "losing it" is quite different from the Horowitz example that you cite above and the Arrau one with which I responded to it.

There actually isn't anything wrong with Nyiregyhazi's playing of the Rachmaninoff Concerto No. 2 apart from some wrong notes.  The interpretation is of extraordinary emotional insight, intensity and conviction.

Well, if that's how you hear it, be my guest. I wish that I could do the same, but I cannot, because I find it as I described it.

I don't really have any standing in regard to the manuscripts and other materials in Japan.  The owner (if indeed any of of the materials are his personal property and did not belong to the defunct college) is in jail.  The rights owner to the music content lives in the Netherlands.  I think though that the possible owner of the manuscripts in Japan thinks of himself, too, as the owner of the music content.  There are these types of issues.

These factors would certainly prove to be obstacles, although I would hope that anyone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that he/she has legal title either to mss. or intellectual property rights or both would not simply let the former end up in the garbage purely through obduracy; most people who seek to exercise their alleged rights do so because they want somehow to benefit from them. The intellectual property rights issue is an easier one to determine that is that of ms. ownership, because the mss. could have been gifted by their composer during his lifetime (although that probably could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt) whereas intellectual property rights would have to be enshrined in N.'s will othewise no claim to them would have any value in law; had N. died intestate, that would have created another minefield, of course! I presume, however, that the rights owner in the Netherlands can prove title to those rights.

In our day of government crisis, with educational institutions and not only the government ones not too far behind as you will see, I don't think the I.P.A. [which is housed in a government university] would be a wise choice for recipient of the manuscripts.  Best, for now, would be to have the manuscripts physically and legally in private and competent hands - provided this is not, of course, the hands of a hoarder of the music content.

No such institutions, public or private, can be guaranteed to last forever. Much would nevertheless depend upon whether the mss. owners could prove title to the mss. in their possession and, if so, whether they would be prepared to sell them or give them away and, if the former, for what price.

Anyway, someone ought to have a try, but I cansee how diffilcult it could prove to be.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

These factors would certainly prove to be obstacles, although I would hope that anyone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that he/she has legal title either to mss. or intellectual property rights or both would not simply let the former end up in the garbage purely through obduracy; most people who seek to exercise their alleged rights do so because they want somehow to benefit from them. The intellectual property rights issue is an easier one to determine that is that of ms. ownership, because the mss. could have been gifted by their composer during his lifetime (although that probably could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt) whereas intellectual property rights would have to be enshrined in N.'s will othewise no claim to them would have any value in law; had N. died intestate, that would have created another minefield, of course! I presume, however, that the rights owner in the Netherlands can prove title to those rights.
No such institutions, public or private, can be guaranteed to last forever. Much would nevertheless depend upon whether the mss. owners could prove title to the mss. in their possession and, if so, whether they would be prepared to sell them or give them away and, if the former, for what price.

Anyway, someone ought to have a try, but I cansee how diffilcult it could prove to be.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I've been led to understand that Mattheus Smits (who runs The International Ervin Nyiregyhazi Foundation) is the rights owner to the music content.  He approves of all performing and recording with no money to himself and as long as he is kept informed of such things.  I think though that any commercial venture involving the music would need to know for sure who owns the rights to a music content.  For YouTube recordings and some solo performing, maybe an individual performer can reasonably be mistaken about such things and let off the hook in the event of a dispute (after all, it is "The" International Ervin Nyiregyhazi Foundation), but I would bet that a record label (or a publishing house) would be expected to have known with definiteness the identity of the music content rights owner.

I don't expect that Nyiregyhazi's Two Legendes would equal those of his idol, Liszt - which is mentioned here just as an example.

But maybe they would work paired off with the Liszt Legendes on a (presumably quite demanding!) programme?

That and much else is in Japan, and hopefully in intact form and not reduced to such status as even an F.B.I. forensics lab could not recover the items or meaningfully identify and assemble the constituent molecules thereof.

No amount of money can bring back anything that already is "gone" - for someone with the funds and interest, I think you are right that there should be an acceptable price point . . . but if instead of 13000 pages it is only 500 that are found, that probably would not command nearly as high a price!

In fact, for a sufficient sum, I would be happy to part with my own hand written manuscripts of my music, but it wouldn't come cheap.  


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I've been led to understand that Mattheus Smits (who runs The International Ervin Nyiregyhazi Foundation) is the rights owner to the music content.  He approves of all performing and recording with no money to himself and as long as he is kept informed of such things.  I think though that any commercial venture involving the music would need to know for sure who owns the rights to a music content.  For YouTube recordings and some solo performing, maybe an individual performer can reasonably be mistaken about such things and let off the hook in the event of a dispute (after all, it is "The" International Ervin Nyiregyhazi Foundation), but I would bet that a record label (or a publishing house) would be expected to have known with definiteness the identity of the music content rights owner.

I don't expect that Nyiregyhazi's Two Legendes would equal those of his idol, Liszt - which is mentioned here just as an example.

But maybe they would work paired off with the Liszt Legendes on a (presumably quite demanding!) programme?

That and much else is in Japan, and hopefully in intact form and not reduced to such status as even an F.B.I. forensics lab could not recover the items or meaningfully identify and assemble the constituent molecules thereof.

No amount of money can bring back anything that already is "gone" - for someone with the funds and interest, I think you are right that there should be an acceptable price point . . . but if instead of 13000 pages it is only 500 that are found, that probably would not command nearly as high a price!

Thank you for taking the trouble to provide this information. One can only hope for the best, I think.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

I just now detected that I was remiss [and perhaps you, too, were remiss   ] earlier in this discussion in not mentioning Ronald Stevenson as one the 20th century composers whose music is very worthy of performances and recordings.

I am sure that you agree in this assessment of his work.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I just now detected that I was remiss [and perhaps you, too, were remiss   ] earlier in this discussion in not mentioning Ronald Stevenson as one the 20th century composers whose music is very worthy of performances and recordings.

I am sure that you agree in this assessment of his work.

I certainly do.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I certainly do.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

In addition one ought to not leave out composers such as:

Emile-Robert Blanchet
Ernest Bloch
Aaron Copland
Claude Debussy
Federico Mompou
Ignacy Jan Paderewski
Selim Palmgren
Sergei Prokofiev
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Maurice Ravel
Erik Satie
Arnold Schoenberg
Alexander Scriabin
Dmitri Shostakovich
Alexei Stanchinsky

The more I think about it, the more remiss it seems that we have been.  Even now, as I finish this post, more names come to mind.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

Here are some more:

Carlos Chavez
George Gershwin
Darius Milhaud
Francis Poulenc
Karol Szymanowski
Ralph Vaughan Williams

I'll add to our list again when and as more names come to mind.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Everyone,

I have come up with another name - and a sterling name it is - to add to the list which Alistair and I are compiling:

Emile Naoumoff

This is given with my apologies, Mr. Naoumoff, if you read this, as the omission of your name here in the prior post(s) of this thread is not excusable.

If anyone knows off hand of additional and worthy 20th century composer names to add to our list, please do so.  I am a bit too sleepy at this time to think much more upon it.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Charles Griffes - this is another one . . .

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

I forgot about Alexander Tcherepnin.

What a great piano concerto this is:

Mvh,
Michael