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